IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8398/2017 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8397/2017 IN CRL.P.NO. 8398/2017 BETWEEN:
1. LAKSHMI, W/O SHIVU, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO. 50, ‘B’ BLOCK, KURIMANDI, N.R. MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570001.
2. VIJAYA, S/O LATE MARA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.42, ‘B’ BLOCK, KURIMANDI, N.R. MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570001.
(BY SRI. K.L. SREENIVAS, ADV.,) ... PETITIONERS AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY NARASIMHARAJA POLICE STATION, MYSURU – 570001.
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560001.
...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.134/2017 (C.C.NO. 3447/2017) OF NARASIMHARAJA P.S., MYSURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 306, 448, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.
IN CRL.P.NO. 8397/2017 BETWEEN:
1. RAMAKKA, W/O LATE MARA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO. 42, ‘B’ BLOCK, KURIMANDI, N.R. MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570001.
2. MANJU, S/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.5, ‘B’ BLOCK, KURIMANDI, N.R. MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570001.
(BY SRI. K.L. SREENIVAS, ADV.,) ... PETITIONERS AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY NARASIMHARAJA POLICE STATION, MYSURU – 570001.
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560001.
...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.134/2017 (C.C.NO. 3447/2017) OF NARASIMHARAJA P.S., MYSURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 306, 448, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Since these two petitions are in respect of same crime and common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, they are taken together to avoid repetition of discussion of law and facts and to dispose of them by this common order.
2. Crl.P.8398/2017 is filed by petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail and Crl.P.8397/2017 is filed by petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest, for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 307, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.134/2017. Subsequently, after completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 448, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State in respect of both the petitions.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in both the bail petitions, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
5. The complaint is by one Smt.Saraswathi, who died when she was admitted in the hospital because of burn injuries sustained, the Police went to the said hospital and recorded her statement as narrated by her and on the basis of the said complaint, FIR came to the registered as against the petitioners herein.
6. During the course of hearing of these petitions, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the statement of the husband of the deceased is totally contrary to the case of prosecution. Hence, there is no prima-facie case against any of the petitioners herein. Referring to the requisition by the Tahasildar dated 12.06.2017 addressed to the Police Narasimharaja Police Station, Mysuru, so also, to another letter dated 12.06.2017 from the office of Tahasildar, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that these documents creates doubt in the mind of the Court that whether deceased was really in a condition to give the statement, which was treated as complaint in the case. Hence, submitted that there is no consistency in the case of the prosecution. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Hence, submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners may be granted with regular as well as anticipatory bail respectively.
7. Opposing the petitions, learned HCGP submitted that at this stage, the statement of the deceased assumes importance because after her death, it becomes dying declaration under Section 32(1) of Evidence Act. He also submitted that looking to the statement of the victim, who subsequently died because of burn injuries, has clearly stated about the petitioners herein and their participation in the alleged acts. He also submitted that the alleged act is very serious in nature and hence, none of the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail and submitted to reject both the petitions.
8. Perusing the entire materials, as per the statement of the deceased Smt.Saraswathi, she made an allegation so far as Lakshmi, who is accused No.1, that she along with three others criminally trespassed into the house when she was alone in the house and abused her stating that she is having illicit connection with the husband of Lakshmi and also stated that she will not spare her on that day and commit her murder, stating so she took kerosene oil from the stove, poured it on the deceased, even though the deceased requested not to do so, she lit fire to deceased. So far as other petitioners are concerned, there is also allegation that they instigated accused No.1/Lakshmi to finish off the deceased. If these materials are taken into consideration, the statement of Smt.Saraswathi after her death, becomes dying declaration. Considering these materials, there is allegation so far as accused No.1/Lakshmi is concerned that she took the stove, poured kerosene and lit fire to the deceased, but so far as other petitioners i.e., accused Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, the only allegation against them is that they instigated accused No.1. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed.
9. Looking to these materials, there is a prima- facie case so far as petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned, hence, petitioner/accused No.1 is not entitled for release on bail and so far as petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, they are entitled for grant of bail.
10. Accordingly, Crl.P.8398/2017 is allowed-in- part. Crl.P.8398/2017 in respect of petitioner No.1/accused No.1 (Lakshmi) is rejected and petition in respect of petitioner No.2/accused No.2 (Vijaya) is allowed. Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 (Vijaya) is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.134/2017 registered for the above said offences, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 (Vijaya) shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
11. Crl.P.8397/2017 is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 i.e., Ramakka and Manju respectively, on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.134/2017 registered for the above said offences, subject to the following conditions:
i. Each petitioner i.e., accused Nos.3 and 4, shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioners have to make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
iv. The petitioners have to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR