IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7515/2010 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. BHIMAPPA S/0. SHIVAPPA HANDIGUND, AGE: 45 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, RIO. DHAVALESHWAR, TALUK: MUDHOL, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT. 2. SHRI. MALLAPPA 5/0. BASAPPA ULLAGADDI, AGE: 25 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, RIO. SANGANATTI, TALUK: MUDHOL, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT. PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANTHOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADV.,) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY: KULGOD POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V.S.KULKARNI, HCGP) *** THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THEM ON BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.188/2009 OF KULGOD POLCIE STATION, ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Petitioners, who are accused No.1 and 2 face charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC in Cr. No.188/2009 seek bail. 2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 3. Record reveal: The petitioner No.1 — accused No.1 married Sushilawwa, but the marriage was failure, it resulted in divorce, consequent to which Sushilawwa took shelter in the house of Doddavva. it is alleged petitioner No.1 though deserted Sushilawwa started visiting her. Complainant and her family members opposed it as there was divorce between then. They advised them to remarry if he wants her. Petitioner No.1 is alleged to have remarried her. It is further alleged that though he remarried Sushilawwa he started quarrelling with her suspecting her character. 4. In this regard Complainant’s son advised Petitioner No.1 to take Sushilawwa with him and establish home. The accused No.1 is said to have taken her to a place called Dhavaleshwar and rented separate house. While living there Sushilawwa telephoned Mallappa informing him that she is not willing to stay with him and to advise her husband to take her back to the earlier whom. Petitioner No.1 along with Petitioner No.2 are alleged to have visited Sushilawwa’s house and took her with them. 5. Thereafter nothing was heard. Since whereabouts of Sushilawwa were not known, her relatives started searching her. It was of no avail. In the meanwhile 4 Sushilawwa’s dead body was found abandoned. On the report of the Complainant suspecting involvement of the petitioners’ a case was registered in Cr. No.188/2009 and they were arrested. In this manner the petitioners are in judicial custody. 6. Petitioners’ counsel would submit there is absolutely no motive attributed to either of the petitioners for committing alleged crime. He submits Petitioner No.1 has done all that was possible to take care of Sushilawwa as could be seen from the statement itself. Petitioner No.1 wanted to keep Sushilawwa in seaprate residence which she did not like. Therefore, she left his company on her own. Petitioner No.2 has no role in their life and his implication is without basis. He refers to statement of CW1O on whose statement the petitioners are charged for principal offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Assuring that petitioners will not cause any impediment in the trial he seeks bail. 7. In negation of these grounds Sri V.S.Kulkarni, learned Government Pleader contends the detailed statement made by CW1O brings out overt acts of accused No.1 and 2 in causing homicidal death of Sushilawwa. Since Sushilawwa’s death is shown to be a unnatural death Petitioner No.1 being husband is required to explain the circumstances in which such unfortunate accident occurred. Therefore, he submits strong prima facie case is made out against him regarding murder of Sushilawwa and he is not entitled to bail. 8. I have examined the material placed by the prosecution. It is quite clear that soon before her death Sushilawwa was found in the company of Petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.2 is said to be his accomplice, who had gone to the house of Sushilawwa. Thereafter nothing was heard about Sushilawwa except discovery of her dead body. Thus, petitioners have to explain. 9. At this juncture sufficient prima facie case is made out to subject the petitioners to trial. Allegation against 6 them are of serious nature and I find no reason to admit them to bail. The bail petition is rejected. Sd/ BS* VK