IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA' 5 _
cmcurr BENCH AT DHAR\3I.A_.:$f '
DATED 'I'HiS THE 24% DAY;:A_OF:.f§()f'V§3M 3EI§;'
BEFQRE _
THE Hozvanr: MR'J'Lé$T1cE
"
BETWEEN:
Smt.Laxmi, ;W)'p_ A
Aged abogxtfifi j,fc_:a._rs~, in V
R10: "
Tq. * .. PEYFPIONER
(By Sri Ramacimnam
mm state 'sf 1<ma:a« ka, ' ' '
How A by' Siam" P."P_, ,_}~
~ ifiigh c*.;ur¢. of Building,
A Bepch,.nng:wm1. .. RESPONDENFS
% m~;.c;»pt:mmdi, HOG?)
f *ri:is§etition is fikacl under Sectioxl 439 Cr.P.C. praying
the petuone" 1' on haii in Kakati P.S. Cfnnc
P3{3.2'28]2008 mfimwd for oficnces punishabk: 1:] s. 302,
4Q£&-A 11W. 34 1.13.0. on my oondifions and harms which this
may deem fit.
Thispefltioncomingonforoxdexs thisday, the Court
made thc following:
ORDER
The petitioner is the mot31m:’–in-Jaw of
@ Savitha. The petitioner was mrrkxi to
10 years prior to the daté of occ31rr’tnoc. iieigscé ‘ ; x
and the maternal house of the
same village. Them
deceased, her husband and
that on 29.8.2008, thc
husBéanfi«.of her mother–in-law {petitioner
hcxcin) the deceased and set her on fire.
is in jud1c1al’ ‘ cuatody and she £9
heard the lcarncd Counsel fin’ pcifiomr and
AA Government Advacatc: fin’ the State.
5. The learned COIZIIISC} for pcti&rncr wouid submit
thatthaemaz7na.gcbetwcentI1cdcoeascdm1daocusedNaa.1
was performed abcut 10 years back. The statexnenm flaye-
witnesscs do not inspire confidence. The petifionscr is a
woman aged about 57 years. Thercfoztz,
an bail’ -. , 2 . –
6. The learned that there is a dimct The sister of the she has
merit: a, statement ‘V No.2 doused
kamscnc The posmortem
report of burn in
against petitioner and
magnitude of ofience, she is
not benefit available under Section
“C1zP.C3. extended to her.
T. Counsel for petitioner has made
.’ documents fled under Section 1735) Cr.P.C.
‘I’I1’cx’cf:t eye-wilncsscs to the occurrence. They have made
” $fatements before the Police that the: dficd was set on
by accused 1 and 2. The prosecution has invoked
” Section 34 I.P.C. Thczefom, the petitioner cannot be released
onbail. 7; ;3K,1/Lwitf
8. As regards applicability of
Section (1) of Section 437 u
that I proviso cannot be
shall take into oonsiderafiéfi» natiia: of
offence. The proviso dune’ toxy.
Therefore, having attainable
against .V Vf’t’hc ofiencses ancged
against cm hm}
_ {pass the following; I
‘*,¢muxm@fi&&gmmmn
Sdf*
Tudge