CRL.P/8552/2017 of SEENA @ BENGALURU SEENA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 28 December 2017

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accusedNo.2 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking his release onbail in Crime No.82/2017 for the offences punishableunder Sections 450, 302, 120(B) r/w. 34 of IPCregistered by the respondent — police.

|In order to avoid wastage of time, thesubstance of the complaint is culled out from the order passed by the V Additional District andsessions Judge, Mysuru, which reads as under:

“TheVidyaranyapurampoliceregistered the above crime on the basis ofthe complaint filed by one G.Babu, whohappens to be the father of the deceased— Sunitha. The complainant was thefather of the deceased and he was livingwith the deceased-Sunitha, her sonBhuvan and the son of the complainant Sunil in a rented house while he was.working in a Railway Workshop StoresDivision. On 13.6.2017 the complainantand his son Sunil had been to work at.about 6.15 and 6.45 a.m. as usual and at.about 9.45 a.m. the said Sunil had cometo house since he has forgotten the keysand when he came to house the house.was latched from the outside and whenhe went inside he found that thedeceased-Sunitha had been murdered on.the Diwan Cot. Immediately, he informedthe complainant and who also came tothe spot. Thereaiter, about 7 year oldchild of deceased Sunitha came back.from the school and he disclosed that theaccused No.1 — Karthik, who happens tobe the husband of the deceased-Sunithahad come at about 8.30 am. and the.accused No.1 as well as the deceasedsunitha had helped the child to board theschool van. Therefore, the complainantcame to conclusion that the accused No.1, since had vengeance against thedeceased Sunitha on account of obtaininga divorce trom accused No.1 had come tomurder her and by slitting the neck of thedeceased Sunitha with a knife, she waskilled. The complainant also mentionedthat the accused No.1-Karthik and thedeceased Sunitha had married after.loving each other and the relationshipwas cordial for about one year andthereafter there were differences and fed.up by the harassment, she was stayingwith the complainant and her brotherSunil.

The allegation against accused No.2(petitioner herein) is that accused No.1secured him and he supplied dragonknife to accused No.1] to murder Sunithaat the time of incident.

5

3Heard the learned Counsel for thepetitioner and the learned High Court GovernmentPleader tor the respondent — State.

4The petitioner is in judicial custody since18.6.2017. Now the investigation is completed andcharge sheet is also filed. In the context andcircumstances of the case, I am of the sincere viewthat there was no likelihood of interference to the’investigation by the petitioner and nO prejudice wouldbe caused to the prosecution if the petitioner isreleased on bail.

5. |Accordingly,|thepetition1Sallowed.Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in Crime(No.82/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections490, 302, 120(B) r/w. 34 of IPC registered by therespondent — police, subject to the following conditions:- SA

1) |The petitioner shall execute a personal bondfor Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)withasuretyowningandpossessing|immovable properties for the likesum.for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)withasuretyowningandpossessing|immovable properties for the likesum.

11) The petitioner shall not terrorize or tamperthe prosecution witnesses in any manner.

111) The petitioner shall not leave the Karnataka|border without prior permission of the trialCourt.border without prior permission of the trialCourt.

iv)The petitioner shall mark his attendance|before the Investigating Officer on every firstsaturday of each month between 9.00 and10.00 p.m. until further orders by the trial)Court.before the Investigating Officer on every firstsaturday of each month between 9.00 and10.00 p.m. until further orders by the trial)Court.

#/Thepetitionershall|NOTContactanyWItTNeSSesconnecting|theprosecutionwitnesses or materials.WItTNeSSesconnecting|theprosecutionwitnesses or materials.

Sd/-|

JUDGE |