1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015
BEFORE
THE HONBLE Mr. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
CRL.P. NO. 5315 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
AMAR SARKAR
ALIAS AMAR SINGH
S/O NARAYANA SARKAR
AGED 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT NITHAILGUNJ
VILLAGE, BETHNA POST,
KARANDAGI THANA
UTTAR DINARPUR
WEST BENGAL STATE 700001.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRADEEP C.S., ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF J.P.NAGARA P.S
BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE 560001.
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri. NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP)
***
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 439 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETR ON BAIL, IN CR.NO.
65/2015 OF JAYAPRAKASH NAGAR P.S., BENGALURU CITY,
FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 302 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government pleader appearing for the respondent
- State.
2.

Petitioner

is

the

sole

accused

in

Cr.

No.65/2015 on the file of the respondent J.P. Nagar

Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of IPC. He is in judicial custody and hence he
has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
3.

The case of the prosecution is that one

Thothendra Jagadevaiah @ Kotesh lodged a complaint

before the respondent - Police alleging that two months
prior to 26.01.2015 petitioner accused came along with
his wife seeking for job with his brother Sogaiah @
Suresh. He informed that their marriage is love marriage
and asked for an accommodation.

His brother gave

accommodation and job to him. The petitioner accused

gave ID proof when he joined. But On 26.01.2015 at

1.30pm there was quarrel between the couple, but the
Complainant, his brother and others pacified them.
Thereafter, the petitioner accused strangulated his wife
and escaped from the spot. On the basis of the said
complaint the respondent - Police registered a case and
took up the investigation.
4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that petitioner accused is innocent and a false case has

been registered against him. Reading of complaint does
not make out a prima facie case against him for the
offence alleged. He contends that the Complainant alleged
that one Prabhu had informed that petitioner accused
had killed his wife. But he is not the eye witness to the
incident. Even the telephone number of the said Prabhu is
not mentioned or it was seized by the prosecution. The
Complainant mentioned telephone number as 843123078
stating that it belongs to petitioner accused. But on

enquiry police came to know that it belong to another

person and there is no relation between the said person,
Complainant and the Prabhu or the petitioner accused.
The investigation is completed and charge sheet has
already been filed. He hails from respectable family. He is
in judicial custody since 06.02.2015. The petitioner
undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be
imposed by this court while granting the bail. Hence, he
prays to allow the petition.
5.

On the other hand, learned Government

Pleader vehemently opposes the bail application on the

ground that there is a prima facie case against this
petitioner accused. He submits that the offences alleged
are very serious and the present petitioner is directly
involved in the crime. He contends that there is frequent
quarrel between the couple. This offence alleged is grave
one and punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
The statement of witnesses, PM report, inquest mahazar

and other documents clearly show that this petitioner

accused had committed the alleged offence. The
prosecution has placed all the relevant documents on
record. Therefore, he requests this court to dismiss the bail
application.
6.

Perused the records.

7.

As could be seen from the records, the

investigation is completed and charge sheet has already

been filed. On perusal of the records produced there is no
direct evidence to show that this petitioner accused had
committed any offence much less the offence alleged
against him. The Complainant had stated that one Prabhu
had informed over phone stating that this petitioner
accused strangulated his wife. But the said phone number
was not recovered.

The phone number mentioned

belongs to some other person and there is no nexus

between the said Prabhu, Complainant or petitioner

accused. The material placed on record by the prosecution

is not sufficient at this stage to hold that the petitioner
accused had killed his wife. The petitioner is in judicial
custody for more than six months. Besides, the petitioner
accused hails from a respectable family having deep
roots in the society. He undertakes to abide by any
conditions that may be imposed by this court while
granting the bail. Thus, the apprehension of the learned
Government Pleader could be suitably met by imposing
proper conditions. Hence the following:ORDER
The bail petition is allowed. Petitioner is granted
bail. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.50,000/- with one solvent local surety for the like sum
to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court, subject to
following conditions ;
1) He shall not hold out threats to the prosecution
witnesses or tamper with evidence;

2) Petitioner shall attend the court on all dates of

hearing,

except

under

unavoidable

circumstances;
3) It is made clear that if he does not comply with
any one of the conditions imposed on him, the
prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of
the bail from the concerned Sessions Court

Sd/JUDGE
VK