IN THE COURT OF THE XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 9) AND HOLDING CONCURRENT CHARGE OF LXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 70) BANGALORE CITY Dated this the 6th day of April, 2024. PRESENT: Sri HAREESHA A., B.A., LL.B., XXVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 9) and also holding concurrent charge of the court of 69th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 70). CRL.MISC.No. 2848/2024 PETITIONER : Prakash V., S/o. Venkatachalapathi, Aged about 55 years, Residing at No.365/A, 2nd Cross, 3rd Phase, West of Cart Road, Manjunath Nagar, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru – 560010. (Accused in J.C.) [ (By Sri. Mahantesha, Advocate) –VERSUS– RESPONDENT : The State of Karnataka by Basaveshwaranagar Police Station, Bengaluru. (By Learned Public Prosecutor) ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Cont’d.. –2– Crl.Misc No.2848/2024 The petitioner has filed this petition under section 439 of Cr.P.C., for his release on bail in Crime No.92/2024 registered by the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 201 and 302 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioner, asserting false implication among other

grounds, and pledging adherence to any conditions that may be imposed by this court upon release, sought for release on regular bail.

3. Per contra, the objection filed by the learned Public

Prosecutor, it is contended that, there is prima facie material on record to believe that the petitioner had committed the alleged offences, hence the prosecution seeks the dismissal of the petition.

4. I have heard the arguments and perused the material

placed by the petitioner along with petition. The point that would arises for my determination is:

1. Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to enlarge on bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C?

2. What Order?

Cont’d.. –3– Crl.Misc No.2848/2024

5. My answer in the Negative for the following;

R E A S O N S

6. POINT No.1 : The prosecution contends that on March

6, 2024, at about 2.00 p.m., the petitioner lodged a complaint with the respondent police, alleging that on 05.03.2024, around 10 p.m., his son, the deceased P. Yogesh, left the residence and did not return. On March 6, 2024, at around 10 a.m., the deceased returned home. When questioned about his whereabouts the previous night, the deceased, without divulging any information, retreated to his room. Subsequently, at approximately 11 a.m., upon the complainant's visit to the deceased's room, it was discovered that he had tragically taken his own life by hanging. Immediate efforts were made to release him from the restraint and transport him to K.C. General Hospital for medical intervention; however, the attending physician declared as brought dead. The complainant harbors suspicions that the deceased's act of self-harm was motivated by exam-related anxiety. Consequently, based on this complaint, an Unnatural Death Report case was Cont’d.. –4– Crl.Misc No.2848/2024 registered in UDR No.8/2024 under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

7. During the investigation process, the deceased's body

was transferred for postmortem examination to ascertain the cause of death. On the same day, an inquest was conducted in the presence of witnesses, and the postmortem examination was carried out at Victoria Hospital. The postmortem report revealed the presence of a ligature mark on the deceased's body, with the attending physician opining that death resulted from asphyxia due to ligature strangulation. Subsequently, the Sub-Inspector of Police in Basaveshwara Nagar filed a complaint against unknown individuals, considering the incident as a case of murder. Based on this complaint, the investigating officer initiated inquiries and, suspecting the involvement of the petitioner, apprehended him. During the course of investigation, the petitioner disclosed that the deceased had a history of alcoholism and would frequently engage in quarrels with the petitioner, who happens to be the deceased's father. On March 6, 2024, at approximately 10 a.m., the deceased returned home Cont’d.. –5– Crl.Misc No.2848/2024 in an intoxicated state and instigated a quarrel with the petitioner, demanding the whereabouts of his exam hall ticket. When the petitioner professed ignorance regarding its location, the deceased physically assaulted him. In response to this assault, the petitioner struck the deceased with his fist, causing him to fall. Subsequently, the petitioner proceeded to strangle the deceased with a cloth, resulting in his demise. In an attempt to destroy evidence and portray the death as a suicide, the petitioner hanged the deceased's body from a ceiling fan and lodged a false complaint.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently

contended that the deceased, under the influence of alcohol, would frequently engage in verbal abuse and physical assaults against the petitioner, who is the deceased's father. It is argued that the incident occurred in the heat of the moment, during an altercation initiated by the deceased, and therefore, there is no prima facie evidence to suggest that the petitioner harbored any intention to commit murder. Additionally, it is emphasized that the postmortem examination Cont’d.. –6– Crl.Misc No.2848/2024 revealed that the cause of death was asphyxia resulting from ligature strangulation, indicating that death was not natural. Further, the investigation is still ongoing, and as such, it would not be just or appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner at this juncture, given the gravity of the offense. Therefore, considering the circumstances and the seriousness of the offense, it is the opinion of the court that it is not appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner at this time. Therefore, I constrained to answer Point No.1 in the negative.

9. POINT No.2 : For the aforesaid reasons and discussion I

proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The bail application filed by the petitioner/Accused under section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. (Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 6th day of April, 2024.) (HAREESHA A.) Holding Concurrent Charge of the Court of the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-70), Bengaluru. Cont’d..