Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State, and perused the records.
2. The prosecution has filed charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The petitioner is accused of killing his wife, the deceased Kalpana by smothering her with a bed sheet. It is alleged by the prosecution that the petitioner and the deceased, though married for about ten years, had no children and that they were frequently quarrelling. The frequent quarrel between the deceased and the petitioner was because the petitioner suspected the fidelity of the deceased. The couple, the petitioner and the deceased, were working in a garment factory and on the eventful day viz., 4.10.2018, the deceased returned home late and there were exchange of words between the couple as heard by the neighbour. The mother of the deceased, who lived in the vicinity of the daughters residence, called on her daughter. She found the door open and when she entered the premises, she found her daughters dead body with certain facial injuries and ligature mark on the neck. The petitioners bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is rejected by the Sessions Court by its order dated 20.08.2019.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence, and the petitioner is accused of being culpable only because of certain circumstances viz., the neighbours hearing exchange of words between the petitioner and the deceased late in the evening of 4.10.2018 and the doctors opinion in the postmortem report that the deceased was done to death by asphyxiation. The learned counsel submits that the circumstantial evidence does not inspire confidence inasmuch as it is not even established that the two neighbours, whose statements are recorded, reside in the immediate vicinity because of discrepancy in the addresses furnished. The learned counsel submits that the accused, who was visiting Tirupathi during the relevant point of time, returned on his own and only then he was taken into custody. If the petitioner was guilty, he would not have returned to his residence to be arrested.
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader submits that there is definite case against the accuseds culpability in the light of the circumstantial evidence, most specifically the statement of the neighbours as well as the mother as regards the frequent quarrel between the couple and loud, including the quarrel during the previous night because the petitioner suspected the deceaseds fidelity. The learned High Court Government Pleader also submits that the medical evidence on record also corroborates the petitioners culpability.
5. The prosecution has to establish the petitioners culpability beyond all reasonable doubt based on the circumstantial materials as such as motive, medical evidence, the petitioner being last seen with the deceased and recovery. However, insofar as grant of bail, this Court, in the light of the submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is of the considered view that there is prima facie case for grant of bail. Therefore, the following ORDER: The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in S.C. No. 501/2019 on the file of the XLV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, [CCH- 46] subject to the petitioner executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs and offering two sureties for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs each to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court subject to the following conditions:
1) The petitioner shall appear before the Sessions Court on every date of hearing without failure unless exempted by the Sessions Court.
2) The petitioner shall not whatsoever manner intimidate the witnesses or tamper the evidence.
3) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court without express leave of the Sessions Court. SD/- JUDGE SA/-