IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHAR WAD DATED THIS THE 21 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CR1MINAL PETITON No.10176/2011 BETWEEN: Basavarj, S/o. Kempaguddayya @ Annayya, Age: 27 years. 0cc: Lineman. Rio. Guddahalli, District. Rarnanagar. . Petitioner (By Shri. G.N.Narasammanavar and Shri. D.R.Kulkarni Advocates) AND: State of Karnataka, By Laxmeshwar Police Station, Represented by S.P.P.. High Court of Karnataka. Circuit Bench, Dharwad. . . . Respondent (By Shri. Anand Kumar Navalgimath. Government Pleader) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to grant regular bail to the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 323. 504, 498(A), 304(B), 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in Laxmeshwar Crime No.67/20 10 pending on the file fo the Fast Track Court at Gadag in S.C.No.98/2010. This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 2. The complainant is the father-in-law of the petitioner. It is his allegation that the petitioner had married his daughter Ratnarnma on 1 .03.2007 and at the time of the marriage, the complainant had furnished cash of Rs.2,00,000/- and gold and silver items worth of Rs.3,00,000/-, by way of dowry and the petitioner was yet not satisfied with the same and demanded more. When it was not forthcoming the petitioner was alleged to have tortured Ratnamma and ultimately douse kerosene and set her on fire. Hearing the alarm raised by her, the neighbours had Come and tried to save her, but ultimately she died of the burn injuries while she was under treatment. A dying declaration was recorded by the Tahasildhar as on 27.07.20 10 and it is the case of the petitioner that from the contents of the dying declaration, it is clear that the petitioner 3 stands absolved of any such accusation of having tortured Ratnamma or having doused her with kerosene and having set her on fire. The lower Court had rejected the bail application on the ground that there was prima facie material against the accused and since those materials required to be scrutinized, and tested at a full-fledged trial, there was no ground made out for enlarging the accused on bail. 3. However, while the lower Court has referred to the dying declaration recorded by the Tahasildhar Hubli, the Court has not taken note of the fact that the dying declaration is silent about the petitioner’s involvement in the incident. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail, notwithstanding the serious allegations that are made against him. 4. The learned Government Pleader while reiterating the sequence of events would contend that there are statements of several witnesses, who were eyewitnesses at the time of marriage and witnesses, who were the neighbours of the U 4 accused, who have asserted that the accused was harassing the victim. However, there were no eyewitnesses to the incident, of the petitioner having set Ratnamma on fire. Though the statement ofobjections filed, also refers to the dying declaration recorded by the Tahasildhar. It merely states that the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by the Thasildhar, the same does not indicate that the petitioner was implicated in the said dying declaration. 5. To a pointed question by the Court, the learned Government Pleader would now acknowledge that there is no such statement made by the victim as against the present petitioner. Therefore, in the absence of any eyewitnesses as to the actual commission of the offence, such circumstances of cruelty etc., sought to be asserted on the basis of other witnesses would certainly be watered down. Hence the petitioner has made out a case for enlargement on bail subject to the following conditions: S 1) He shall rurnish a personal bond for a sum of2O,OOO/-, with a solvent surety for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 2) He shall make himself available to the Investigation Officer as and when required for the purposes of investigation. 3) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without seeking leave of that Court. 4) He shall not seek to induce or threaten the prosecution witnesses. 5) He shall attend the trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail subject to the Court granting exemption for good and valid reason. Sd/ JUDGE Rsh