Pandu Vithal Mullur vs State of Karnataka

B. Sreenivase Gowda, J.—The petitioner, arrayed as accused No. 1 in Crime No. 67/2015 of Mahalingapur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147. 148, 498-A and 302 of IPC r/w. Section 149 of IPC, now registered in S.C. No. 95/2015 on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, sitting at Jamakhndi has preferred petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge him on bail.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State, and perused the complaint, FIR, charge-sheet and the order passed by the learned Session Judge, rejecting the bail petition of the petitioner filed under Section 439, Cr.P.C.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence, much less the one alleged in the complaint and the charge sheet. He submits, as the deceased had illicit relationship with somebody and had conceived from that relationship, she committed suicide by feeling guilty of her conduct. He submits, the brother of the accused arrayed as accused No. 6 has already been released on bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 10141/2016 and the allegation against this petitioner and accused No. 6 being one and the same and applying the principle of parity, the petitioner may be released on bail. He further submits, two small children namely Bhagyashree and Guru, aged about nine and six years respectively, born out of wedlock of the petitioner and the deceased, who are presently residing with the parents of the petitioner, used to ask for their parents and therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail. He submits that the family members of the petitioner are taking care of the children and all the family members including the petitioner have voluntarily decided to transfer the share of the petitioner in the joint family properties in favour of the aforesaid children. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition by granting bail to the petitioner.

The learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the request made by the petitioner on the ground that petitioner has committed an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment. The Sessions Court considering this aspect of the matter by the impugned order has rightly rejected the bail petition and therefore, he prays for rejection of the petition.

That, on the basis of the complaint made by Sadashiv son of Bhimappa Lalasingi, brother of the deceased, respondent-police of Mahalingapur Police Station have registered a case in Crime No. 67/2015 against the petitioner, his mother Paddavva, his father Vittal Mullur, his brothers Paramanand Vithal Mullur, Shivanand Vithal Mullur and Ramesh Vithal Mullur who were arraigned as accused Nos. 1 to 6 in the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 143, 147, 148, 149,302 of IPC. In the complaint it is stated that his deceased sister Sumitra was given in marriage to the petitioner twelve years ago and two children by name Guru and Bhagya were born out of their wedlock. It is further stated that in view of differences between him and his brothers, the petitioner (accused No. 1) has separated from the joint family and was residing separately along with his deceased-wife and children. The petitioner used to harass the deceased by doubting her fidelity and was giving her mental torture. It is alleged that the petitioner used to warn the deceased saying that she should not go out of the house and not to talk with anybody. That a month prior to the incident, the petitioner, his mother Paddavva, his brothers Shivanand and Ramesh had come to his village and informed his father that the people in their village started talking that the deceased is having illicit relation ship with her brother-in-law Paramanand, the elder brother of the petitioner. The police who have registered FIR against the petitioner, his mother Paddavva, his father Vittal Mullur, his brothers Paramanand Vithal Mullur, Shivanand Vithal Mullur and Ramesh Vithal Mullur, after investigating the crime have filed charge-sheet only against (petitioner accused No. 1) and, his last brother Ramesh Vithal Mullur (accused No. 6) and dropped his parents and two other brothers from the case. It is also to be noted that the allegation against the petitioner herein, his parents and his other two brothers and accused No. 6 Ramesh Vithal Mullur is almost one and the same. As per the complaint, it is alleged that petitioner, his parents and the three brothers have assaulted the deceased and later on the petitioner and his last brother Ramesh Vithal Mullur arraigned as accused No. 6 in the charge-sheet alleged to have strangulated the deceased with the help of a plastic wire and caused her death.

This Court in order to ascertain the position of the children of the deceased and petitioner, had directed the learned Counsel for the petitioner to keep the children present before the Court. Accordingly, the children were kept present before Court along with their paternal grand parents and on enquiring the children about their parents they answered that their mother is dead and their father is in jail. The age of son at present is stated to be nine years and daughter is about six years old. The children have lost their mother and their lather is in jail and at present they do not have the affection of both the parents. In similar circumstances, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Lingaram Kodopi v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2014) 3 SCC 474. considering the tender age of the children and their future prospects has granted bail to their mother where father has died.

The parents and other brothers of the petitioners in order to show their bona fide that they are taking care if the children of the deceased and the petitioner and all of them including the petitioner are prepared to transfer the property to be fallen to the share of the petitioner in favour of the children, have filed their affidavits to that effect.

The charge-sheet has already been filed and there is no apprehension that if the petitioner is released on bail, he would flee away from justice and would obstruct further investigation. As already stated, the allegation against the petitioner/accused No. 1 and his brother Ramesh Vithal Mallur/accused No. 6 who has already been released on bail are one and the same, and therefore, applying the principle of parity and considering the tender age of the children, I deem it just and proper to release the petitioner on bail on imposing some conditions.

Hence, the following:

ORDER

The petitioner/accused No. 1 is released on bail in connection with Crime No. 67/2015 of Mahalingapur Police Station, now pending in S.C. No. 95/2015 on the file of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, sitting at Jamakhandi, subject to following conditions:

The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Sessions Court.

The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Sessions Court on all the dates of hearing.

The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court without its prior permission.

The petitioner after his release from judicial custody shall make necessary arrangement for transferring the property in the name of his minor children with the help of his parents and other brothers as per the undertaking given to this Court.

In the event of petitioner disobeying any of the above conditions, respondent-State is at liberty to move the Sessions Judge for cancellation of bail.

List this case on 25.04.2016