Sri Ganesh Balu @ Ganesh vs State of Karnataka

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Petitioner was arrested by the MICO Layout Police, in Crime No. 646/09, for an offence punishable under Ss. 498-A and 304-B of IPC on account of suicidal death of his wife Niranjani, on 19.7.09, Since the date of arrest, he is in custody. The investigation having been complete, charge-sheet has been filed and the case was committed to the Court of Session. He had applied for bail, which was denied. He had approached this Court in Crl.P. 465/10 for grant of bail. Said petition was dismissed as withdrawn with an observation which reads as follows:

Considering the prosecution case in its entirety, I am of the view that, at this juncture, request could be granted with an observation that if the trial is not concluded within a period of 6 months, the accused would be entitled to apply for regular bail.

Indisputedly, even the charge has not been framed by the FTC to which the case has been assigned by the Court of Session. The bail petition of the Petitioner having been turned down by the learned Presiding Officer of the FTC, he has filed this petition.

On 28.12.10, the matter was adjourned to enable the learned Government Advocate to file the report received from the Jayadeva Hospital, Bangalore since the record reveals that, the Petitioner is a cardiac patient and has been under treatment. Learned Government Pleader has filed memo annexing the medical report pertaining to the Petitioner. The record would indicate that the Petitioner has obtained treatment at Sri Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology from 16.6.10 to 2.7.10 wherefrom he was taken to Victoria hospital as per the advice given by the Cardiologist of SJIC, for evaluation with psychiatrist at the Victoria Hospital. The Petitioner was an inpatient at the Victoria hospital from 2.7.10 to 15.7.10. The doctor has opined that his condition as of now is satisfactory and that the Petitioner is getting treatment at Victoria hospital as per the advice of the specialists.

Prima facie, the material on record as of now would not indicate the prosecution having made out a case against the Petitioner for an offence u/s 304B IPC Even if the case sought to be projected against the Petitioner u/s 498A IPC were to be accepted, the Petitioner has been in custody from 21.7.09. The deceased has left a child, which is now in the custody of the relatives. Since the case new projected against the Petitioner by the prosecution does not show that a punishment beyond 7 years is likely to be imposed even If convicted after trial, 1 deem it appropriate to allow this petition more particularly keeping in view the aforesaid observations of this Court and also that the Petitioner is undergoing treatment, by subjecting the Petitioner to conditions.

In the result, the petition is allowed and the Court below is directed to enlarge the Petitioner on bail upon he executing a bond for Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum and to the satisfaction of the Court.

(i) The Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Session Court without prior permission;

(ii) The Petitioner shall appear on all the dates of hearing of the case before the FTC and extend ready co-operation for early trial and disposal of the matter;

(iii) The Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses /evidence, in any manner;

(iv) The Petitioner shall not involve himself in any non-bailable offences.

If any of the conditions is violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail.