AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Natarajan, J
This is a successive bail petition filed by the petitioner / accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting the regular bail in Crime No.105/2020, registered by Nelamangala Rural Police Station and charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 114, 498(A) and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in S.C.No.62/2021 on the file of VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, at Bengaluru.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. SPP. for the respondent – State.
The case of the prosecution is that the case is registered on the statement of the deceased recorded by the police alleging that the marriage of the deceased and the accused was held 03 years back prior to the incident. They are residing at Jakkur Layout. They have no children. The accused was assured by the mother of the complainant that at the time of marriage, they are ready to give a car, but the car was not given to the accused. Therefore, he was demanding the car as per the assurance. He was always quarreling with her, suspecting her character and harassing both physically and mentally. The sister of the accused one Bharati was insisting the accused to got for another marriage. On this background about 03 days back, the accused took her to the marriage of one of their relative and she came back and he picked up quarrel on 13.07.2020 at about 07.30 p.m. They have insisted her to die then only he can marry another woman. Then he poured petrol on her and thrown the match box to lit the fire herself. But she was kept quite. Therefore, the petitioner took the match box himself and lit the fire and caused injury. She raised the alarm. The accused himself poured the water and then the neighbour Rangaswamy came and shifted to the Hospital in 108 Ambulance. The accused with an intention to commit the murder, poured the petrol and lit the fire.
Based upon the statement made by the victim herself, the police have registered the case for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Subsequently, the complainant had succumbed to the injuries. Hence, offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is converted into offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. The earlier bail petition of this petitioner came to be rejected twice by this Court on 11.06.2021 on merits and 27.10.2022 for non-prosecution. Hence, once again the petitioner is before this Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the dying declaration recorded is suspicious. The neighbour Rangaswamy has been already examined and he has not supported the case. The dying declaration itself is not believable. The petitioner is in judicial custody for more than 04 years. He is ready to abide by any conditions. Hence, prayed to grant the bail.
Per contra, the learned Addl. SPP. seriously objected the bail petition contending that important material witnesses CWs.8, 12 and 13 are not yet examined. The parents of the deceased are also not examined. The case is based upon the dying declaration of the deceased herself. If bail is granted, he may tamper the witness and delay the trial. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
Having heard the arguments and perused the record, which reveals that the very complaint is registered on the statement made by the deceased herself to the police. On the same day, the police have arrested him for offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Subsequently, the deceased was died in the hospital. Therefore, the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is invoked by the police and also filed the charge-sheet.
This Court twice rejected the bail petition of the petitioner. Absolutely, there is no changed circumstance for considering the bail petition by this Court once again.
The Trial Court already commenced the trial. Though the said Rangaswamy examined as PW.3 and he has not supported the case, that itself is not a ground to grant the bail. This case is based upon the dying declaration of the deceased. The dying declaration is believable or not, is only after recording the evidence of the person who recorded the dying declaration. Therefore, I am of the view that at this stage, if the bail is granted, there is every possibility of tampering the prosecution witnesses and absconding from the case is not ruled out. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDE R
The petition is dismissed.