NATARAJ @ SIDDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State has not filed objections, but has made oral submissions opposing the petition.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case for the purpose of adjudication of this petition is that, based on the complaint made by the father of deceased-Saraswati, on 28th August, 2019, a case came to be registered by Rajagopalanagar Police Station in Crime No.448 of 2019 (SC No.366 of 2020) for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) , 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Perusal of the complaint would reveal that, deceased-Saraswati and accused No.1-Mallikarjuna are the husband and wife and they have two minor children, viz. Chaitra and Tarun aged 13 and 11 years respectively. It is further stated that, after marriage, there is a rift in the family on account of the fact that accused no.1 was not taking care of the needs of the family and was ill-treating the deceased physically and mentally. It is further alleged that the accused No.1 was a drunkard and having taken note of the said fact, the complainant-father of the deceased, has put up their family in the upstairs of the same house. The complaint further states that, on 27th August, 2019 at about 10.30 p.m., one Siddha (accused No.2) had come near the house and made enquiry about accused No.1 and in that juncture the complainant has seen that the said accused No.2 entering the house of the deceased, and thereafter, the complainant-father of the deceased has slept with his grandson-Tarun and on the following day i.e. on 28th August, 2019 at around 7.30 am, the children of the deceased informed the complaint that their mother- Saraswati is dead and accordingly, the complainant went to first floor and found that his daughter-Saraswati is dead with blood- stains on her head. After registering the criminal case, voluntary statement of the accused were recorded and based on the voluntary statement, mahazar was drawn by the investigating officer.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that perusal of the complaint would clearly establish the fact that the petitioner herein (accused No.2) is the suspect and there is no eye-witness to the incident and the entire case rests upon circumstantial evidence, and in that view of the matter, since the petitioner herein is in judicial custody from 31st August, 2019 and as the charge sheet is laid before the competent Court on 25th November 2019, the petition requires to be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. He further contends that the learned Sessions Judge in SC No.366 of 2020 by its order dated 24th July, 2020 has rejected the bail petition on an erroneous fact and rejection of bail petition on considering the statement made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is contrary to law and the same cannot be considered as a basis for rejection of bail.