YASHODHAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the petitioner - Yashodhamma @ Yashodha who is arraigned as Accused No.1 in S.C.No.8/2020 arising out of Crime No.130/2019 of Molakalmuru Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 302 , 201 r/w 34 of IPC . Since from the date of her arrest, accused is said to be in judicial custody. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to enlarge her on regular bail among the grounds urged therein and even on the ground of parity in relation to Accused Nos.2 and 3 who have been granted bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.2683/2020 vide order dated 26.06.2020.

(2.) It is stated in the complaint filed by complainant - Rathnamma alleging that her younger brother N.Gopala had habit of consuming alcohol. He went out of the house on 14.10.2019 and did not return till 9 p.m. Therefore, based upon the report of Accused No.1- Yashodamma @ Yashodha who is none other than the wife of the said Gopala, initially the case in UDR No.16/2019 came to be registered to proceed as contemplated under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. But on filing of complaint by Rathnamma who is none other than the sister of deceased Gopala, the case in Crime No.130/2019 came to be registered for the aforesaid offences. Accused No.1 - Yashodamma is alleged to have illicit intimacy with Accused No.2 Thippeshi and this accused as well as Accused No.3 - Hulukunta were hatching criminal conspiracy with Accused No.1 - Yashodamma to eliminate deceased Gopala. But for the suspicion made by Rathnamma who is none other than the sister of deceased Gopala, that this Accused No.1 - Yashodamma had a criminal conspiracy with co-accused to eliminate deceased Gopala. The same has been reflected in the FIR said to be recorded by the police and proceeded with the case for investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused.

(3.) It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments that the entire case is revolving around the circumstantial evidence collected by the IO in order to laying the charge sheet against the accused and so also to establish the case. But there is no direct overt act attributed against this accused in committing murder of her own husband Gopala by hatching a criminal conspiracy with Accused Nos.2 and 3. But the dead body of Gopala was found lying behind the Yaramanchanayak ITI College and it was shifted to Molakalmuru Government Hospital. The Doctor on seeing the body declared as 'brought dead'. Subsequent to the report submitted by accused regarding the death of her husband, initially the case was registered in UDR No.16/2019 as contemplated under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. for investigation. However, there is no direct materials acknowledging that this accused had a criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.2 and 3 in eliminating her husband deceased - Gopala. But the allegations is that she had some illicit relationship with Accused No.2 - Thippeshi. But accused No.2 in collusion with Accused No.3 alleged to have committed murder of deceased who had come in their way. But there is no direct materials secured by the IO during the course of the investigation even to the extent that this accused had illicit relationship with accused No.2. But Accused Nos.2 and 3 have already been granted bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.2683/2020 vide order dated 26.06.2020. He contends that this petitioner/accused No.1 stands in similar footing as that of Accused No.2 and 3 for the alleged offences. Therefore, principle of parity has to be extended to this accused while considering her bail as where she is ready to abide by any terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court while granting bail and moreover, the charge sheet is already laid by the IO and this accused is no longer required to the investigating agency. These are all the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and seeking for granting the bail to this accused.