The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. and the consideration of whether the detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.261 of 2021 of T.Narasipura Police Station, Mysore District, pending on the file the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Sri.Somappa.

2. Heard Sri. Raksha Keerthana.K, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Rahul Rai.K, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the sole accused. He is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 30/7/2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. It is alleged that there was quarrel between C.Ws.1 and 3 i.e., the petitioner and the son of his brother. The deceased being the mother of the petitioner intervened in the matter and tried to assault the petitioner with a wooden club. The petitioner snatched the wooden club and assaulted on the head of his mother, as a result of which, she died at the spot. Even the case made out by the prosecution is that it was not a pre-planned murder. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Even though the statements of C.Ws.1 to 3 disclose that the incident had taken place in a fit of anger, the injured has sustained one injury. The petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. Detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. C.Ws.2 and 3 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. Statements of the eyewitnesses was also recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner assaulted the deceased on her head with a wooden club, as a result of which, she died at the spot. The wooden club was recovered at the spot. As per the postmortem report, the deceased had sustained head injury. Looking to the nature and seriousness of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C.?"

My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the following:

R E A S O N S

6. The son of the deceased lodged the first information against the petitioner making specific allegations. C.Ws.2 and 3 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. Statements of the eyewitnesses was also recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. As per the case made out by the prosecution, there was quarrel between C.Ws.1 and 3 on the one hand and the petitioner on the other hand. The deceased tried to intervene in the matter and tried to assault the petitioner with the wooden club. It is stated that the petitioner snatched the wooden club from the deceased and hit on her head. As per the post-mortem report, she sustained one head injury i.e., fracture of the left temporal bone which resulted in her death. The wooden club and cloths of the accused were sent for FSL examination, which disclose that there were no blood stains. It is not the contention of the prosecution that it is pre-planned murder. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petiti