High Court Karnataka High Court

Vithal S/O Ramu Palkar vs State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Vithal S/O Ramu Palkar vs State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2009
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 29*" DAY OF OCTOBER,«~~t?;4Q§'1::S§_t:4'ii  

BEFORE
THE HON'8LE MR. JUSTICE A.I\v°v'.; i}'Ei\I'u:;c.9A-:;A  _ 

CRIMINAL PETITIdN.. NDoAC.795';,{ f2t0o§»t '*--g "

BETWEEN:

Vithai,

S/0 Ramu Pafkar . D
Age: 26 years,   . if
Occ: Mason   R .

R/o Sambra'f.."v H  D « A   V
Dist: Be|g;¥mm."----.f""--.._ A    PETITIONER

(By S31' E  e   'angD_Li def, Adv)
AND: C V'  C  

The State Of Ka rnateA+;:e"'~*
By DP;/lafihaf P.S.-...

  Byi__i"ts State Pubi'éC"'Pr'Dsecutor
V Dnarwac;   RESPONDENT

 .(B5y_Sr'E':4:l'=f~..,t§.f§DtkhindE, HCGP)

~Tms cm: is féied under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

V.  pr.a__ying"' to direct the Marihai Pofice Statéon to enfarge the

 petitioner on baii in SC No.26?'/2008 En Crime

 __ "N0'.1'22/2008 on the fife of the III Addi. Sessions Judge,
 Eéeigaum.



This Crl.P is coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following:

ORDER

Petitioner has been chargesheeted aio_ngwith’,j’,ot’tie.rs,

for the offences punishable unde_rM,S,ectio_n”’49i-3(vA’);: 3-Q4(c_iEus)”

and 306 read with Section 3-ii’-.,of;’_”IPC::a|’so,i”‘uli*cier
Sections 3,4 and 6 of the Dowiity. Prohibition’.§ict.;..I…_,., it t

2. A case was registel:red__ag_ainst tihejigpeiiitioner on
the basis of the corn-n’iai.n’ét,.’e.fA;l.one’:..S’atish Kinayekar of

Karate Vi|lage_._=where’i’ri”it’, waS.._aIlVeg.ed” that, his sister

Savithad”Vlvwa.§Vf.v_Vgiiren marriage to the petitioner on
18.05v.x2«Q'()’7 of marriage certain gifts were

given, though d.ema”nd«”‘f.rom the petitioner side could not

‘bee-diet’. “i-ijiowe\}’e’r’,”even after the marriage, there was

“d.ernanidgdfovrVA»,.ba.yment for cash, jewelry etc., which could

no_t_V view of which, ill-treatment and harassment

Acauseclgto Savitha, by the petitioner and others. Savitha

was}’driven to the extreme step and she committed suicide

hanging herself. According to the coqiaint, cause for

death of Savitha is, the physical and mental harassment

caused by the petitioner and others. The crirrujedhaiving

been registered, FIR was sent to the Court.

other accused persons were arr_este_d a_ndwVw’ejre.’se_’nt to 2′

judicial custody. Petitioner is jullclicial’

Chargesheet has been filed ‘an’o’._the case wasv.Vco§rn’n*.witted too’

the Sessions Court for__tria|.

3. Petitioner pyeltition, which on
consideration;wa.s:yI’*rejectegdi’ a second bail
petition in Sessions Case
of the petitioner and
that of:zthVe»i*n view of the prima facie case

appearing i4’a~ga’lnst.’– thveipetitioner, the learned Sessions

an order””d’ated 22.12.2008 has dismissed the

Hence, the petitioner has approached

this__:Court’tdelhlarge him on bail.

*2 I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for

tlnpeipetitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader

lv

for the respondent. I have perused the chargesheet

materials.

5. The point for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is ent:tie¢:i<<fa_

to be released on bail?''

6. Marriage of the petiti’o’ne.ry and

Savitha was soiernnised on

Savitha died on :5.os.2oo8~a.§uu5ytiycorfimitt:no-i_;su~sétc’ide.’ The”?

death of Savitha at,.-the _m’aer”i.m’o*niai house./Eis not in

dispute. The prosecutione_’ca’Se.ii”§Vf’ would attract the

punishmerit ofivse-v:en,_’y’ea’r’s imprisonment and fine.

7. iThe”‘S_e’ssion””_Court has observed that the since

pencianicy of Sessions, cases before it are very iess, there is

i no_iii<eA|i'Ahoo:d~–.of deiay in disposing of this case. Moreover,

dispose of custody cases on priority.

ThEérefore’;”.there wiii not be any delay in hoiding of the

8. Indisputably, the trial has commenced and few

prosecution witnesses have been examined. –iHow~ey–ear,

learned Counsel for the petitioner submits

wherein the case is pending has no .publi.-clpro’s«ecutorj_and it

hence, the trial of the case may not

prosecution has cited 33 w’itn’esses to ,p.<oye.,_its;'casej ands

the prosecution case is v__…cife»pe'ndEnt', ,,,,9r1l.yf on the
circumstantial evidence".–.V:é'AnothVerivciircurrjstance pleaded by
the learned Counsel ivchargesheet has
already been tampering of the
proseCutiQn_A""w:i:'tn:e§_s_" need not suffer

impriso.nm_e*nt, found to be guilty.

do~notAf’ind’:merit in the contentions of the

-‘V,4.lear§ned:,.,-Counsel.H”P’r’i’rna facie, the allegations against the

,’,pe%j,tiio.ni¢«:,j¢i »recg:u”i.res full-fledged trial. According to the

petitioner,’:a:i,,2’ithe witnesses cited by the prosecution are

‘»circum’sta”ntial witnesses and the prosecution case is based

_»ci’,’r;cumstantia| evidence. In the case of the present

nature, the prosecution can establish its case even on the

E

/.

I

basis of circumstantial evidence. If the trial has
commenced and if there is delay, the Trial Court shall take

necessary steps to see that the case is taken u;jT”a.t an

early date, by scheduling its work so

concluded. Mere filing of the chargesheé_t’~~.Vyisifinot

ground to admit the accused baiyl,i;u’n.ies’$

prima facie case against hirn’..y__. ‘ i i i V A i

10. Considering the and ciircutrnstainices of the

case, no case is made._.’cu_t petitfliioner on bail.

Hence, the Criminal Peititioin sltaridsihlfejéctéd.

7yd.Hoe,n!ever,fthel 4rlia:l.””Cou’rt is directed to expedite the
trial anduconcyluide ‘th:e” at an early date.

is neediesswto point out that, the Triai Court s-hall

‘ note C0_i’iSti’Liié’the findings and observation made herein or

“i.n”ii:’s order refusing to enlarge the petitioner on bail, as an

exoress.ion of opinion on merits of the case. The Trial

2 iCourt shall consider the case before it, on the basis of the

Aigmaiterial that may be placed on record either by the

‘a

prosecution or defence and shall decide the same both on

facts and in law on their own merit.