IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7361/2017 BETWEEN:
Smt Manjula W/o Mahadevappa Aged about 50 years Occ: Anganawadi Volunteer R/at Uyingodanahalli Hunsur Taluk Mysore District-571 105. ... PETITIONER (By Sri Balakrishna M R, Adv.) AND:
The State of Karnataka By Hunsur Rural Police Station Hunsur Taluk Mysore District-571 105.
Represented by its State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.136/2016 of Hunsur Rural P.S., Mysore District and C.C.No.582/2016, pending on the file of VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, sitting at Hunsur for the offences P/U/S 302 and 109 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking her release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 114 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent – police station Crime No.136/2016 and now pending in C.C.No.582/2016 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM Court, Hunsur, Mysore District.
2. The prosecution case in brief as per the complaint averments is, mother of the deceased is the complainant wherein she has stated that on the alleged date of incident the petitioner herein picked up quarrel with the deceased. She poured kerosene oil on the deceased and lit fire to him. The deceased sustained burn injuries. He was screaming and the neighbours one Shivakumar and Chandrashekarappa came and tried to extinguish the fire, but was not possible and the son of the complainant was burnt. On the basis of such complaint, case was registered for the said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that accused Nos.2 and 3 have been already granted bail by the order of the Court. The deceased was frequently picking up quarrel with the petitioner and was addicted to alcohol and was also having suicidal tendency. On one occasion when the deceased had picked up quarrel with the petitioner, petitioner had filed the complaint before the police station. He has also produced the copy of the said complaint wherein the petitioner herein had mentioned that deceased come to house in a drunken state and pick up quarrel with herself and her children and asked the police to take proper action against her husband. He further drew the attention of this Court to the copy of the statement of deceased himself wherein he has admitted that he is addicted to drinking habit. There is also an acknowledgement issued by the police station regarding such complaint and on one occasion, he made an attempt to commit suicide by consuming poison. In this connection the document issued from K.R.hospital Mysore, is also produced. Hence, it is his contention that the deceased committing suicide by pouring kerosene on himself cannot be ruled out at this stage.
He has further submitted that the dying declaration of the deceased is also not recorded. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner may be admitted to regular bail.
5. Per-contra, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that non-recording of the dying declaration cannot be a reason for releasing the petitioner on bail. The complainant who is the mother of deceased is the eyewitness. She has clearly stated in the complaint that it is the petitioner who poured kerosene and lit him on fire. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the documents produced by the petitioner along with the petition regarding petitioner filing the complaint against the deceased and other connected documents.
7. As per the complaint averments, the mother of the deceased is the complainant wherein she has stated that on the date of the incident she has seen the petitioner pouring kerosene on the deceased and litting him on fire. When there is a specific contention and the complainant is the eyewitness to the incident and the alleged offence is under Section 302 of IPC, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in faovur of the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
However, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since from the date of arrest the petitioner is in custody, the concerned Sessions Court is hereby directed to take up the matter on priority basis and to dispose of the main case itself as early as possible.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp