Mr Raghavendra Pandurang Raikar vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Mr Raghavendra Pandurang Raikar vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2008
Author: R.B.Naik

CIRCUIT BENCH AT1§HARW.A.:$'pfe:et.§p   If u 'A  '

THE HON'BLE MR.Jtie'ncE  V   

CRIMINAL }PdpE§*r_;m:(%;_1p~I"t 5 39412003
Between     ~   "
S/o. M1; Fandtxranga   '
Aged a1_)out~.2(}--  
Post Ijiangne-1.,:ii3isti%ict.  : Petitioner

(By Sri. v.sJa:}unje1 :5;  Advocates)

"The 'sweet? 

'l'in'eugh Station,
Haveritdisuict, Represented by

  The Statefubiic Prosecutor,
 g  Bench, Dhaxwad. 2 Respondent

 Anand K. Navaligmath, Advocate)

  This Criminal petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.,

  _ fby the Advocate for petifioner praying to enlarge the petitioner
on bail in crime No. 199/ 2007 of Hangal Police station registered
for offences punishable under sections 323, 307 IPC




(s.o.No.2o/2003) pending on the file of the..'Dis»i_:riot and
Sessions Judge, Haveri.  f  , " ..

This petition coming on for orders.  

the following: - '

A case in Crime l’~’3.§:;’f_20l)7i-_iAS 511% 13.1 1.2007 in
Hangal Police station herein for oflenoes

punishable on the ooxnplajnt of

one oi’ B.B. Hajeera. After
completion of sheet came to be filed again’ st
the aforesaid oifenoes.

” in her complaint has alleged that

V wife are Iesidentf of Hangal and in the same

‘ ~ liislbrotlier Abdul Majeed Hajaresab resides along with

A and children, he has two daughters and two sons; that

regularly going to Goa to eke out his livelihood and in

VA his wife and children of his brother were residing; that


the Wife of his brother had gone to mid

to bring money; that on 13. 1 1,2907
near Lakshmeswara clinic, a him that
accused–pe-titioner h€I’BiI£t_.’i:}.ad his brother’s
daughter Beebi Hajeera ‘Aii?esidents of the locality
had exfillguishod to the hospital, the
complainants’ to hospital, he saw the
injured with of her hands, face, chest and

stomach; he made, with her, she stated that it was the

” who came to the house and stated

love with her and she should reciprocate for

i V’ the she: to do so, he threatened saying that either

. alive or she should be alive and that he would not

he went inside the house brought kerosene can

. on her and lit fire. The injured started wailing out, the

iieighbours got attracted, came to the scene, poured water and

extinguished fire and took her to the hospital; the incident had

occurred at 8.00 p.m. ,E_g…..¢uL~L.

3. The hospital authoritries forwarded to the

police, the complainant, after ascertaining’

to the police station and lodged “on, ii.e.,x

on 13.11.2007 within two hours dateor i11cident;,Vt11ei

police authorities, after ‘of “the a
requisition to the record the
statement of Beehi Magistrate,
without loss of and recorded the
statement of?’ V. day wherein she has
stated it who came to her house at about

8.00 p.111 fallen in love with her and she

..,sho111d§l: the same; as Hajeera “refused for the

kerosene, stating that he would not spare her

and came to the scene extinguished fre

and to the hospital and adnntted.

‘ 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there

it no eyewitness to the incident in question; petitioner, While

trying to extinguish the sustained injuries to his hand and he

offence, he would have run away ftjznii the it”

is not that he has eloped from     5

man of 31 years and the    and as
such, the material on      facie case.

5. ‘I’imei.. Vxvsupreme Court has
repeatedly if if found reliable that
alone of the accused. In the

instant ,_ Magistrate, recorded the dying

dying declaration was also made

1′ __to h¢r’imc1e the com’plaJnan’ t, on the basis of

:lodVgwed:.1complamt As regards the treatment taken by

the simple injuries sustained by him, the records

‘ it that’:’on1y after his arrest after two days from the date of

it is the police who took him to the hospital for

it “1:I’::=.-‘a:1l:1:t1ent, that itself shows that he was absconding till he was

‘anested. As the material collected during investigation and

other circumstances clearly go to establish not only prima facie

case but there is a strong prima facie case against the accused-
petitioner of he having involved in commission of

oifence, without expressing any opinion on I

hold that petitioner is not entifled’*~ so: if

consequently, the petition is liable _ J

is devoid of merits. Howe1ier;j”~it is ‘ fhe
observations made above ‘fora of the
present bail petition ii shall not be
influenced by aI_oy’:of’ above at the time of

the trlai of .

a petition is dismissed.



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information