Karnataka High Court
Imran @ Imran Khan vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 June, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3219/2014
BETWEEN:
Imran @ Imran Khan,
S/o. Mahaboob Khan,
Aged about 21 years,
R/at Zubeda Manzil,
No.361, 5th Cross,
Vinobha Nagar,
Kadugondanahalli,
Bangalore-560 045. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri. A.S. Kulkarni, Adv.)
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
By K.G. Halli Police Station,
Bangalore-560 045. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri. Nasrulla Khan, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No.
13/2013 of P.S., for the offences punishable under Sections
506, 498A, 302 and 304B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following :
2
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 506, 498A, 302 and 304B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.13/2013.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the allegations made in the complaint are that the complainant in her statement recorded in the hospital on 9.1.2013 at 4.10 a.m. has stated that she is residing with her husband since last 10 months at K.G. Halli, Bangalore. On 8.1.2013 at 4.00 p.m., her husband quarrelled with her, poured kerosene oil, which was in the house, on her body, lit fire with an intention to kill her and went away bolting the door. When the complainant screamed, her husband came back after some time and took her to the hospital in an auto rickshaw. While going, the petitioner threatened her that if she informs her parents about the incident, he will torn their respect and forced her that she should listen to what he says. Therefore, being afraid of him, she has given earlier statement. It is 3 further stated that her husband attempted to kill her by pouring kerosene oil on her body. Because of this act of her husband, she sustained grievous burn injuries and taking treatment in the hospital. On the basis of the complaint, case has been registered by the respondent police against the petitioner for the alleged offence.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, submitted that looking to the earlier dying declaration, she has stated that when she was in the kitchen to prepare food, she took up the kerosene tin and put kerosene oil into the stove. When she was litting fire, there was accidental fire and she sustained injuries. The learned Counsel submitted that in the subsequent dying declaration, the complainant has implicated her husband, who is the present petitioner, stating that it is her husband who took and poured kerosene 4 oil and lit fire to her and he went out of the house. When she screamed, after some time, he came back. Hence, he submitted that itself goes to show that there are two inconsistent dying declarations made by the complainant.
5. As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the second dying declaration made before the Tahsildar is to be relied upon wherein she has stated that her husband poured kerosene and lit fire to her.
6. I have perused both the dying declarations. In the second dying declaration, the deceased has made it clear that when her husband taking her to the hospital, he threatened her that if she informs to her parents about the incident, then he will torn their image. She has also stated that because of the threat posed by the petitioner, she has given the first dying declaration stating that the incident is accidental. Therefore, there is an explanation in the second dying declaration about the first dying declaration as to in 5 what manner and under what circumstances, she has given the first dying declaration. Therefore, looking to all these materials on record, I am of the opinion that the materials produced in the case collected during investigation go to show prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs/-