IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4832 OF 2019 BETWEEN 1. FATHIMA @ DADIMA W/O HUSSAIN PEER AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS COOLIE WORK R/AT PAMARAHALLI CHITRADURGA TALUKA CHITRADURGA – 577 542 2. ZEBUDA W/O CHAMAN SAB AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS HOUSE WIFE/COOLIE R/AT DURGAMBIKA BADAVANE BHARAMASAGAR CHITRADURGA – 577 542 …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. ROOPA K.R., ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BHARAMASAGARA POLICE STATION CHITRADURGA TALUQ CHITRADURGA – 577 542 REP. BY ITS GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE HIGH COURT, KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI HONNAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.96/2019 OF BHARAMASAGARA POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 498-A, 307, 323, 504, 506, 304-B, 302 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF DP ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondent - State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3 in the charge sheet filed by the respondent/Police in C.C.No.1893/2019 before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Chitradurga.
3. The brief facts of the case as could be seen from the charge sheet are that the deceased Meharoon Bi, daughter of one Ismail Sab was given in marriage to accused No.1, who is no other than the son of petitioner No.1 herein and their marriage took place on 08.09.2018.
It is alleged that at the time of marriage, accused No.1 has received an amount of Rs.30,000/- and gold and silver articles and cloths, etc., in consideration of the marriage. Thereafter the deceased started living with accused Nos.1 to 3 in the house of accused No.1. For sometime they lived happily with each other. Thereafter, differences arose and accused Nos.1 to 3 started demanding an amount of Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of purchasing a motor cycle by accused No.1. In this context, it is alleged that they were ill-treating and harassing the deceased. When the matter reached the climax, on 15.05.2019 at about 4.00 p.m., it is alleged that accused No.1 who was in the house on that day, when Meharoon Bi was in the kitchen, accused No.1 went there and poured kerosene on her and lit fire and when the deceased screamed for help, CW-5 and accused No.1 tried to extinguish the fire and thereafter shifted the injured to the Hospital.
4. In the charge sheet allegations, there are no specific allegation made that accused Nos.2 and 3 have done anything on that particular day whether they have assisted the accused No.1 or not in any manner.
5. Be that as it may. During the course of investigation, at the initial stages when the victim was admitted to the hospital, the history given was it was accidental burn injuries sustained by injured when cooking in the kitchen. Subsequently, the witnesses have been examined including the mother and father of the deceased. In their statement recorded on 17.05.2019 they have categorically stated that on 15.5.2019 when they visited the hospital, the deceased told before them that accused No.1 has poured kerosene and lit fire. At that time, accused Nos.2 and 3 were also present in the house and thereafter when she screamed for help, all of them shifted her to the hospital. Invariably almost all the witnesses have reiterated the above said allegations made against accused Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, at this stage itself, there is some serious difference between the statement of witnesses and the dying declaration. The dying declaration was recorded on 16.5.2019. Though at the initial stages, it was stated by the victim on 15.5.2019 itself in the said manner, but the allegation made against these two accused persons, that they actually assisted accused No.1 to pour kerosene and lit fire to the deceased has to be established during the course of full-dressed trial so as to attract Section 302 of IPC.
6. So far as offence under Section 304B of IPC is concerned, it must be proved before the trial court that there was an ill-treatment and harassment soon before the death of the deceased in demand of dowry. Such allegations are conspicuously absent in the charge sheet so far as these petitioners are concerned.
7. Under the above said circumstance, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are womenfolk in the house and considering the nature of allegations, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail on conditions. Hence, the following:
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.96/2019 of Bharamasagara Police Station, Chitradurga, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall execute their personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
(ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the court till the case registered against them is disposed of.
In view of the disposal of the main petition on merits, I.A.No.1/2019 stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE KNM/-