—1— IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21s’l’ DAY OF MARCH, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNATHAN CRL.P.N0J0318/201 1 Between: Nagaraj Nagendra S/o.Huligeppa, Age 38 years, 0cc.: Agriculturist, R/o.Malvi Village, Tq. :H.B.Halli, District Bellary. Petitioner (By Sri.T.Hanumareddy, Advocate> And: The State by Sub Inspector of Police, H.B.Halli Police Station, H.B. Halli, Dist.: Bellarv, R/bv SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad. Respondent (By Sri.Anandkumar K. Navalgimath, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed u/S. 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in C.C.No.614/2010 on the file of the Civil Jduge & JMFC, H.B.Halli P.S. Crime No.92/20 10 for the offence P/U/S. 498(A), 302 and 304(B) of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard both sides in respect of the bail sought by the petitioner who is accused of having committed offences under Sections 498(A), 302 and 304(B) of IPC. 2. The prosecution case in short is that, this petitioner was given in marriage to one Uma about six years back and at the time of marriage gold and cash were given as dowry and the accused began to harass his wife demanding more money and he assaulted his wife on 17.09.2010 as there was a quarrel between the petitioner and his wife and according to the prosecution the petitioner poured kerosene on his wife and set her on fire, later she died. 3. The submission made by the counsel is that in the St statement recorded by the taluka Executive Magistrate the victim has stated nothing about the incident but later on her dying declaration was recorded and there she revealed that injuries were caused by her husband, Therefore, there is delay in recording dying declaration and moreover complaint indicating that the petitioner tried to avoid the incident taking place, the petitioner therefore be released on bail. -3- 4. On the other hand submission of the High Court Government Pleader for the State by referring the objections filed by him is that, in the dyeing declaring victim has stated that she was set on fire by the husband, apart from that, there are statements of other witnesses to support the statement of victim, moreover the death occurred within four years of marriage therefore the petitioner is not entitled for bail. 5. Having thus heard both sides and taking note of serious nature of the offence alleged and also in the dying declaration deceased has implicated her husband, petitioner 44f4w therefore is not gf-ae bail. 6. Petition is rejected. Trial Court to speed up the trial at the earliest. Sd! JUDGE Vnp