Shaik Thamimuddin vs State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4651 OF 2017

Between:

1. Shaik Thamimuddin @
Shaik Gayasuddin
Aged about 30 years

2. Shaik Gayasuddin
S/o Gulam Mohiuddin
Aged about 65 years

All are r/a near E-All Majid
Chamaraja Nagar Town
Chamaraja Nagar District – 575 001. … Petitioners

(By Sri.B.Lethif, Advocate)

And:

State of Karnataka
By ramapura Police Station,
Chamaraja Nagar District.
Represented by the SPP,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru – 560 001. … Respondent

(By Sri.Chetan Desai, HCGP)
2

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the
event of their arrest in Cr.No.53/2017 of Ramapura
Police Station, Chamarajanagara, which is registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 506 and
114 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3
and 4 of D.P.Act.

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this
day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

the learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent.

2. The petitioners (being son and the father)

apprehend their arrest by the respondent-police in

Crime No.53/2017 dated 29.04.2017 in respect of the

offence punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 114 and

34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act, 1961.

3. The complaint allegation is to the effect that

petitioner No.1 and the complainant were married

during January 2014. Dowry in cash and kind was
3

given to the petitioners. All through the complainant

was harassed by the husband and in-laws by

demanding a car from her parental house, etc. On the

showing of the complaint averments, the first petitioner

has lodged a complaint against the father and brother of

his wife on the allegation of kidnap with the very same

police. Case is registered in Crime No. 2/2017 in

respect of the offences punishable under Sections 506,

504, 149, 143, 355, 324, 342 and 363 of IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit

that present case is a measure to counter blast to Crime

No.2/2017. Be that as it may, since, this is a

matrimonial dispute, the arrest of the petitioners would

deter the possibility of any settlement between the

couple. Hence, in the fitness of things, the petition is

allowed.

4

5. Accordingly, petitioners are granted

anticipatory bail in Crime No.53/2017 registered by the

respondent-Police, subject to following conditions:

(i) They shall forthwith appear before
respondent-Investigating Officer. In that
event, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to
interrogate them and also at liberty to cause
recovery of incriminating materials if any, at
the instance of the petitioners as permissible
under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(ii) In the event of their arrest by the
respondent- Investigating Officer in respect
of the above case, they shall be released on
bail, each executing a self bond for a sum of
Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum.

In view of the disposal of the main petition,

I.A.No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration.

Hence, I.A.No.1/2017 stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE
DN/-

Leave a Comment

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