IN THE HIGH COURT 01? KARNATAEQXI
cmcxsrr BENCH A?' {?aHAf%WA3 ) " f %
DATED Tms THE 17TH DAY c):'1=fVokf:}'1*1§'E., _ _ V
THE HQNBLE MR;,JUSI'ICEuiRAN§--.MORAN.,REAI§DY
cRL.I=-§1*3.é)T..7c':.4_»_:af;I':;.:<)u{)z'5 j
BETWEEN :
Ramappa, S/.o'Sbi%?appa if .
Age: 32 yeats, (._1,FC.¢:V'A§gxiciiift1nist,:AV. '
R/0:KakkihaE1i'"§'2i;:;da, 3
Taluk: Yélfiurgéa, Di§iE'KOppa1. ....¥'ct:':'::i0I1er
(By Sri f;z,M.4JanhQai;V'A{gv§§a§§) .
AND;
V. A' Statéof vE{az13.atai{a,« _____ .. .
"Rep£*eseié'fed"'by State Public Prose-::u*£or
. . . Respcndcnt
ii'. iic:-o't,=.{15indi, HCGP}
itifi
V, " * 4_ This petition is fiicd under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying
taafldw the petition and the petitioner maya be ordered to be
. released on bail, by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC,
Yeilburga tiin F.I.R.No.131/2008 (c:r.No,46/03) of the
' "Kukaoor Police Station.
This pefifien coming on for artists this day, the Court
made the following: L
ORDER
The petitioaemaccuscd of ofiences under
A, 307, 302 §.P.C. in crime No.46/2003 of V
Station on the basis of the dying
Smt.Jyothi, at Kukanoor hospital ‘:4-it Libout
‘7.5.2(){)8, Whfl later on sumumbgid. to infitfifiés am.
011 8.5.2008 in the }1egpitat;””1i1é:i (::~1. fulii:-.¥ié§1\ib”.v’?7/2008
under Section 439 Ct. by order
stated 18.6.20_o3; nag gesazion invoking
Scction 439 t;r.P.C. % 7
2. Thaf: pcfi£17of;1.js*. sppaéed by filing statement of
Qbjecfiouéj 17.”:o;2wa of the respondenvstate,
conmgfistiéiog “£” 1:xat the complainant since deceased
xhevzing the wife of the accused, subjected to
at of the accused, for not bringklg R313 to
t0..&’pfi1:chase a tractor, and the persistsnt demands
bear fruits, on 7.5.2008 at about 8.45 p.m., it
‘ that the accused in his residence pizrkedaap a
with his wife, assaulted her, poured kemsene on her
§fl\
and set her on fine. The investigating oficer .
statement (dying declaration) of the u ” u
presence of the zncdicai oflcer.
3. The ieamcd. Counsel péfitipum: :t’$”:£’}IfiA2$V1’Z’Vl'(.’i’$;% {hat ” V
the petiticmer and the ha1iI’1G::.iouv:; life for
ever 12 years and out of two male issues,
with no family diascoxd. ffhe _CI’§;.r;i;1g….’&ivaé<§i,a1ation of the
deceased wife burns, in a
d{€f1jI'iOUv;?Q"#£v3;tf§";'§?;J1¥1.(;£éVV'1)3::bi2;1it'2V§3dyWV
4. Ai:::9rd.jfig SP. 13., the invcstigafing
ofiicgf’ stafzemcnts of the witnesses by name
and Shivappa before whom too, the
a dying dmlaration. It is further
_ conttzndafi’ satisfactory evidence is mamhallcé. against
: t’.3;: poinfing, prima-Eacic, to the commission of the
under Section 302 1.13.0, which is cognizablye and
;1o;11~bai}abic, which if established in Law, will lead to
punishment of death or life: imprisonment, it is not a fit case
f t fbail. _
ergran 0
5. The contention of the kc: igheu ” ”
petitioner that the deceased Jyoihi
injune” s and was not in a flog an 3.-in the
aileged dying deelamfien as envestigatjng
oficer in the presence bf-ghe is unacceptable
at this stage, as ma “(Ever the validity
of the has a valid and
tenable eetalish the same in the
txial. discloses the nature
of er11e11ey’V– petifioner to the cieeeased,
to he”: A. in the circumstances, there are
gzpunés to bekieve that the petitioner has
.,f_he.:’efi’ence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.,
which what the Sessions Judge has opined while
Ethe petition for bail. in fact, the learned Sessions
Jfidge has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court
the case of Shaikh Rafiz and Another Vs. State of
Maharastra reported in 2008(1) Crimes 415 (SC), which in
the circumstances applies on all its fours. .
ma
we: