Criminal Petition filed for bail under Section 439 CrPC regarding an offence of dowry harassment leading to intentional murder by burning. Court rejected bail citing seriousness of offences and availability of dying declaration.
Bail petition rejected; petitioner to remain in custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15115 OF 2013
BETWEEN :
Srinivas, S/o. Yankappa, Aged 30 years, Occupation: Auto Driver, Resident of Aijapur Village, Taluk and District: Raichur. … PETITIONER.
(By Shri Ustad Firasat Hussain, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka, Through Yeragera Police Station, Represented by the Additional State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Gulbarga. … RESPONDENT.
(By Shri S.S. Aspalli, Government Pleader)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to enlarge the
2
petitioner on bail in Crime No.132/2012 registered by the Yeragera Police at Raichur, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 307, 109, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
This petition coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
after a love affair, before their elders at Yellamma temple in Neermanvi village of Raichur District, about four years prior to the incident. It transpires that the petitioner and his wife lived happily for about three years and produced two children during the period. However, on account of the parents of the petitioner intervening in their lives and goading the petitioner to harass the deceased Renukamma for dowry, this lead to frequent harassment by the petitioner towards Renukamma. On 16.7.2012, it transpires that when the petitioner came home,
3
Renukamma enquired about the rations, which were to be procured by him. Enraged by this, the petitioner is said to have attacked Renukamma and poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. When the deceased started shouting the petitioner soon
after poured water on the burning body of Renukamma. Thereafter Renukamma having been admitted to hospital had died seven days later.
against the petitioner and the petitioner’s bail petition before the
lower court has been rejected on the ground that there was a prima facie case made out against the petitioner. It is in that background that the present petition is filed.
4
seeking to put out the fire has been characterized as the petitioner pretending to put out the fire, to fool the neighbourers who had gathered. It is contended that this version of the prosecution is without any basis as it is the case of the prosecution itself that neighbourers had gathered later and hence there were no eyewitnesses to the petitioner having set the deceased ablaze. Therefore this results in a miscarriage of justice if the petitioner being deprived of his liberty and being accused of a heinous offence. The petitioner has two young children who are now without any care and therefore it is an additional circumstance under which the petitioner could be considered for grant of bail.
would point out that Renukamma has succumbed to the injuries after the incident, but she had made a dying declaration where she had clearly stated that the petitioner had set her ablaze. This
5
is clinching evidence which would certainly prove that the petitioner had indeed committed the crime.
dying declaration of the deceased, as it is now made available, there is no warrant for considering the petition. Having regard to the seriousness of the offences in so far as the children’s of the petitioner are concerned it is apparent that they are being taken care of by other elders in the family. Therefore there is no warrant for consideration of the bail petition and the same is
rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE
msr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of setting his wife ablaze resulting in her death.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Srinivas
The State of Karnataka
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
