MANOJ KUMAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF RAMAMURTHY

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of IPC registered in respondent - police station Crime No.534/2017.

The brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complainant are that the mother of the petitioner herein is the complainant in the case, wherein

it is stated that she is residing with her son and is a house wife. Her husband H V Narayanaswamy was running a provision store and doing

business and they got two children viz., Manoj Kumar, petitioner herein and Kum.Manasa. Both the children have completed their education and

were not going for any job, but they were looking after the affairs of their house. It is stated that previously they resided in a house at

Ramamurthynagar. At that point of time, her husband used to beat and scold her and also her children, by giving them torture each and every day

and also used to quarrel with them. Being disgusted with that behaviour of the husband for the last five years, herself and her children started to live

separately and her husband came to her present house and quarreled with them and after that, they vacated the said house and for the last 1 1/2

years, they lived at Kelkere. However, there also, her husband used to come and quarrel with her and due to this, they thought to reside anywhere

far off the place and thus took a house on rent near Segehalli and they are residing in the said place for about one year.

It is further stated that on 18.11.2017 as usual in the morning, the complainant''s son i.e. petitioner herein woke up and finished his breakfast and

was watching TV up to 1.00 p.m. in the house. Thereafter he went out and returned at about 4.00 p.m. and was weeping by saying that he had

visited his father in Ramamurthynagara to invite him for his marriage. In view of the said reason, the petitioner?s father was aroused and abused the

petitioner in filthy language saying that since the petitioner came after fixing the marriage date, he took a iron hammer from his house and came to

beat the petitioner, but he escaped two times from the hammer and again for the third time, he came to beat the petitioner and at that point of time,

the petitioner snatched the hammer from the hands of his father and he forcibly strangled his neck and pushed him against the wall and due to this,

he suffered breathlessness and with an intention to escape from the clutches of his father, he held the iron hammer in his hand and hit on the head of

his father two times and caused the injury on the head and blood was oozing out. As a result of this, his father fell down and frightened from this, he

went out of the house and informed about the said incident to his mother. On the basis of the said complaint, the case has been registered against

the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent - State.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to cause the death of

his father, but when his father made repeated attempts with the iron hammer in order to assault the petitioner thinking that he may not leave him and

therefore he snatched the iron hammer and assaulted on his father. Learned counsel submitted that when there is no intention to commit the murder,

the case at the most may fall under Section 304 Part-II of IPC, which is not amounting to murder and it is not a murder. Hence, submits that by

imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Government Pleader made the submission that looking into the prosecution materials and also the medical evidence in the

case, there is prima facie case against the present petitioner that he committed the alleged offence under Section 302 of IPC. Therefore, he submits

that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case.

It is not the case of the prosecution that while the petitioner was going to visit his father, he had carried the iron hammer along with him. Even as

per the compliant averments, the petitioner''s father took the iron hammer in his house and the allegation in the complaint at the first instance that his

father tried to assault the petitioner with the said hammer and made attempts two times. In the said circumstances, the petitioner escaped two times

from the hammer and again for the third time, he came to beat the petitioner and at that point of time, the petitioner snatched the hammer from the

hands of his father and he forcibly strangled his neck and pushed him against the wall and due to this, he suffered breathlessness and with an

intention to escape from the clutches of his father, he held the iron hammer in his hand and hit on the head of his father two times and caused the

injury on the head and blood was oozing out. As a result of this, his father fell down and frightened from this, he went out of the house and

informed about the said incident to his mother. Therefore, looking into these materials, it cannot be said at this stage that the petitioner was having

an intention to commit the murder on his father. The petitioner''s father became angry because the petitioner went to visit his father to inform the

date of his marriage. Due to the same, his father abused him saying that after fixing the date of marriage, he came to inform him. Hence, his father

became angry and made attempt to assault the petitioner herein. No doubt, in the post mortem report, there are injuries noted by the doctor, who

conducted autopsy over the dead body. As per the opinion of the doctor that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of homicidal

head injury sustained. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that prima facie, the case falls under Section 304 Part-II of

IPC and not under 302 of IPC at this stage. He has contended that he is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court.

The offence which falls under Section 304 Part-II of IPC alleged against the petitioner is neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life.

Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to regular bail.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner / accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC

registered in Crime No.534/2017, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned

Court.

ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.

Since the petition is disposed of, I.A.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is also disposed of.