Karnataka High Court
Mainusab S/O Maqtumsab Hirekurur vs State Of Karnataka, on 20 July, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH.
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2017.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101401 OF 2017.
BETWEEN:
1. MAINUSAB S/O MAQTUMSAB HIREKURUR
AGED ABOUT: 70 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: CHIKKERURU, TQ: HIREKEKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
2. SMT. KHAIRUNABI W/O MAINUSAB HIREKURUR,
AGED ABOUT: 68 YEARS, OCC; NIL,
R/O: CHIKKERURU, TQ:HIREKEKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH HAMSABHAVI POLICE STATION,
REP.BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K. UPPAR-HCGP)
:2:
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF THE CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND
ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.38 OF 2017
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
498(A), 302, 504 READ WITH 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT
HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioners-accused No.1 and 2 under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking their release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Section 498A, 302 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in respondent-Police Station Crime No.9/2017 and now pending in S.C.No.38/2017 on the file of the II-Additional District and Sessions Judge at Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur).
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments, that one Salma Banu filed the complaint alleging that about 06 years back, she married with Jairuddin, who is the son of the present petitioners. :3: The complainant and her husband led happy married life and gave birth to one male and one female child. Since from date of the marriage the petitioner were harassing the complainant for one or the other reason and they were abusing her in filthy language, stating that she doesn't know any work to be attended and always she use to sleep in the house. Therefore, the petitioners herein targeted the complainant and on the date of the incident i.e., 18.01.2017 at about 10.00 a.m., when the husband of the complaint has gone to attend his mason work, the petitioners poured kerosene on her and set fire and though she requested for help petitioners did not come to her help. Immediately complainant went to bath room and poured the water on her body. At that time her husband came back to the house and immediately took her to the Government hospital at Hirekerur and complainant also informed about the incident to her father and for further treatment she was shifted to Meggan hospital at Shimoga. On the basis of the said complaint, firstly the case was registered for the alleged offences under Sections 498A, :4: 307, 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC and subsequently on the death of the complainant and as per the police requisition the offence under Section 302 of the IPC was inserted in the case.
3. Heard the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners made the submission, that even looking to the averments in the complaint, there are no any serious allegations as against the present petitioners. It is also his submission, that both petitioners are innocent and they are not involved in committing the alleged offences. He submitted that the petitioners are suffering from old age and petitioner No.2 is suffering from ailment. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner draw the attention of this Court to the document produced along with the memo today, this is the letter from the Superintendent of Jail District Prison Haveri, it is dated 15.06.2007. Referring to this :5: document he made the submission, that the health condition of the petitioner No.2 is also suffering from ailments and he has also referred to the other documents produced along with the memo. Learned counsel further made the submission that though the alleged offences said to have taken place on 18.01.2017 at 10.00 a.m. itself. But the complaint came to be filed on the next date 19.01.2017 and the FIR came to be registered on 20.01.2017. Hence, he submitted that throughout the proceeding there is delay, which is not explained by the prosecution. Counsel also made the submission, that looking to the medical records in the history of the case it is mentioned that on 18.01.2017, when the deceased was attending to the work in the kitchen she got fire. Hence he made the submission, that looking to this document also at this stage, it raises doubt, whether really the incident has taken place as narrated by the prosecution. Hence, the counsel submitted that now the investigation of the case is completed, charge sheet is also filed by imposing reasonable conditions petitioners may be enlarged on bail. :6:
5. Per contra the learned HCGP made the submission, that the deceased herself is the complainant in this case and when she sustain the burn injuries she gave the complaint narrating that the petitioners use to ill-treat her and they were abusing her that she doesn't know to attend the work and always she was sleeping in the house and when she alone was there in the house, and as her husband went to his mason work, both these petitioners poured kerosene and lit fire to her. Learned HCGP also made the submission, that there is a dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate, wherein also the deceased consistently made the statement that it is the petitioners who poured kerosene and lit fire to her. Hence, he made the submission that, when there are such materials to show prima facie the involvement of the petitioners. They are not entitled to be granted with bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the other materials produced, so also the documents produced by the learned :7: counsel for the petitioner today along with the memo. As submitted the deceased herself is the complainant in this case and in the complaint she narrated, that it is the petitioners herein who poured kerosene and lit fire to her. It is no doubt true looking to the medical records, it is mentioned regarding the history that on 18.01.2017, when she was attending the work in the kitchen, she sustained the burn injuries. But learned HCGP made the submission that looking to the name of the person who took this lady to the hospital is one Kasim, who is the brother of the husband of the deceased and it is the submission by the learned HCGP that he being the son of the petitioners herein. He is not supposed to give the history as against his parents. Looking to the dying declaration given before the Taluka Executive Magistrate also, the deceased consistently deposed that it is the petitioner herein who poured kerosene and lit fire to her. In the complaint there is a mention that though she requested the petitioners for help during that condition, they did not come to her rescue and she herself went to the bath room and poured the :8: water on her body to extinguish with the fire. May be there is some delay in lodging the complaint and registering the FIR, but that itself will not take away the entire case of the prosecution. When the other materials collected during investigation also supports the contention of the injured deceased, which she has stated in her complaint and as well as the in the dying declaration recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate. Looking to these materials and the manner in which the alleged incident took place, seriousness of the offence, I am of the opinion that only on the ground that the petitioners are age-old persons, they are not entitled to be granted with bail. It is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly the petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE RHR/-