Karnataka High Court
J M Mohan Kumar vs State By on 21 August, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4970 OF 2013
Between:
J.M.Mohan Kumar,
S/o Late Madduraiah,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at Gejjagadahalli Village,
Dasanapura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk. ... Petitioner
(By Sri Subramanya.H.V., Advocate)
And:
State by Madanayakana Halli
Police Station,
Bangalore Rural District - 562123. ... Respondent
(By Sri Vijaya Kumar Majage, HCGP)
This Crl.P is filed U/S 439 Cr.P.C. by the advocate for
the petitioner praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased
to enlarge the petitioner on bail in SC No.291/2012 pending
on the file of the P.O., F.T.C.-III, Bangalore (R) District,
Bangalore, for the offence P/U/S 498A, 302, 304(B) of IPC
and also Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act.
This petition, coming on for orders, this day, the Court
made the following:
2
ORDER
This is a successive bail petition. The petitioner was before this Court in Crl.P.No.1930/2013 which was dismissed on 16.04.2013, in terms of the following order:
"After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition for the present with a liberty to renew the same after some time. Accordingly, the petition is hereby rejected."
2. The final report was filed in 2012. All the documents filed along with the final report were available to the petitioner when bail petition in Crl.P.No.1930/2013 was dismissed on 16.04.2013.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that there was inordinate delay in lodging first information. When deceased was admitted to hospital, history of injuries was given as stove burst. The statement of the deceased was recorded ten minutes before her death.
4. The learned counsel would submit, in the first instance crime was registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC and also for offences under 3 Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The deceased succumbed to burn injuries on 13.05.2012. Thereafter an offence under Section 302 was included. The dying declaration was recorded under suspicious circumstances. In the circumstances, there is no prima facie case against petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC and also for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. Soon after the incident, deceased was taken to Harsha Hospital, Nelamangala, thereafter to Victoria Hospital. The incident had not been informed to police. It is only after recording statement of deceased the afores-stated crime was registered. At this stage, it cannot be disputed that incident took place in the house of petitioner. It is for the petitioner to explain the circumstances under which his wife (deceased) suffered burn injuries and succumbed to burn injuries. Therefore, petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail.
6. This petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-