Nasrin vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1218/2017

BETWEEN:

NASRIN,
D/O. LATE C.N. NISAR AHAMED,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/O. 2ND CROSS, DEVANGA BEEDHI,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN,
DISTRICT-CHAMARAJANAGAR,
PIN CODE-571 313. … PETITIONER
(Now in Judicial Custody)

(BY SRI SOMASHEKAR KASHIMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH CHAMARAJANAGAR POLICE,
DISTRICT-CHAMARAJANAGAR,
PIN CODE-571 313.

REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001. … RESPONDENT

(BY SRI S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
2

CRIME NO.17/2011 (S.C.NO.57/2016) OF
CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN POLICE STATION,
CHAMARAJANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 498(A) AND 302 R/W 34 OF IPC AND
SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This petitioner (accused No.3) along with co-

accused is charge sheeted by the respondent-police in

respect of offences under Sections 498A and 302 r/w 34

of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is, deceased-

Tabasum was married to accused No.1. Dowry in cash

and kind was given at the time of marriage. Some time

after the marriage, the husband and in-laws harassed

the deceased for additional dowry. On 5.2.2011,

petitioner and her mother (accused Nos. 1 and 2)

doused her with kerosene and set her ablaze. While on

READ  Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors vs Inspector Of Police, Chennai & Anr on 17 August, 2004

treatment, the victim breathed her last on 8.2.2011.
3

3. Except the present petitioner, all other accused

are on bail. Similarly placed accused No.1 is on bail.

Since the petitioner and accused No.1 were absconding,

the case was split up. However, now they have

surrendered. As per submission made at the Bar, in

the main case, five to six witnesses are examined. In

respect of split up charge sheet, charge is yet to be

framed.

4. Without expressing any opinion about the

merits/demerits of the case, for adjudication of this

petition, it is considered that the petitioner claims to be

residing in the cause title address ever since the

registration of FIR and did not abscond. Since she had

no notice of the criminal case, she voluntarily

surrendered before the Court.

5. Considering the fact that similarly placed

accused No.1 – her mother is enlarged on bail and it
4

may consume sufficient time for the case to reach its

logical end, there is no impediment to allow the petition.

6. Petition is allowed. Petitioner is enlarged on

bail on her executing a self bond for a sum of Rs. Two

Lakhs with two sureties for the likesum to the

satisfaction of the concerned Court. She shall attend

the concerned Court regularly on all the hearing dates

and shall not tamper or allure any of the prosecution

witnesses.

Sd/-

Judge
Nsu/-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *