Karnataka High Court
Riyaz Ahmed Shahabuddin Gadag vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 August, 2012
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF AUGUST, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10900/2012
BETWEEN:
Riyaz Ahmed Shahabuddin Gadad
Age: 36 years, Occ: Electrician
R/o. Hire Bagewadi, Tq. Dist: Belgaum
...PETITIONER
(By Sri. S. B. Deyannavar, Adv.)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
Through Bagewadi Police
Rep. by SPP Circuit Bench
Dharwad.
...RESPONDENT
(By Sri. V. M. Banakar, ASPP)
---
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to release the
petitioner on bail in S.C.No.22/2012 in Hire Bagewadi P.S.
Crime No.47/2012 for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
made the following:
2
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.
2. The petitioner is said to be the husband of one Shahisita, who died on 12.04.2012 in the District Hospital, Belgaum.
3. It was alleged against the petitioner, that he had married the said Shahisita about 8 years prior to the complaint and was constantly harassing her, physically and mentally, and this was to the knowledge of the complainant, the father of Shahisita. That, she had suffered burn injuries on 08.03.2012. It transpires that, a statement was recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate, wherein she had stated that, while cooking, her saree had accidentally caught fire and she had suffered burn injuries. However, on 12.03.2012, the Police Sub-Inspector, Hire Bagewadi Police Station, has further recorded her statement, wherein she had stated that, about 10.30 p.m. on 08.03.2012, while she was cooking, the petitioner had suddenly barged into the 3 kitchen and poured kerosene over her and set her on fire. It is on the basis of the second dying declaration, that the police had proceeded to initiate proceedings against the petitioner. It is therefore, claimed that there was no substance in the second dying declaration, as it was inconsistent with the statement already recorded on 09.03.2012.
4. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor in his statement of objection, has inexplicably failed to state as regards the statement recorded on 09.03.2012. However, he does not deny that the said statement has been recorded as claimed by the Counsel for the petitioner and would plead that, the information provided to him did not include the said statement and it is on account of such inadvertence on the part of the police, that the statement of objection does not make a reference to the said statement.
5. In any event, since there is inconsistency in the statements of the deceased as recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate and the Police Sub-Inspector as on 4 09.03.2012 and 12.03.2012, respectively, the case against the petitioner would have to be established at the trial, if at all and therefore, to continue the petitioner in custody may not be justified in the light of the above.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner has made out a case for enlargement on bail. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a self bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/-, along with one solvent surety for a like sum, subject to the following conditions:
1. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without seeking leave of that Court.
2. The petitioner shall attend the Court on all dated of hearing.
3. The petitioner shall not influence or seek to threaten the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab/-