Shabreen Taj Sayeda Suriya … vs State Of Karnataka on 18 August, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’ BLE MRS JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5484 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

1. SHABREEN TAJ
SAYEDA
SURIYA FARHEEN
W/O MUKTHIYAR AHMED
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.85
OLD MADRAS ROAD
NEW BINNAMANGALA
BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU – 560 038

2. SYEDA ARSHIYA FAREEN H
W/O IMTHIYAZ PASHA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
RESIDING AT WARD NO.18
OPPOSITE BEERU FACTORY
MEHABOOB NAGAR
RAMANAGARA TOWN
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 159

3. SAYEDA FAREEN
W/O SHAKEEB PASHA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.14
ADDIJAMBHAVA COLONY
2

MALAVALLI TOWN
MANDYA DISTRICT

4. SAYED NAJIYA
W/O SYED AMEER
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
RESIDING AT SATHEGALA
HAND POST
SATHEGALA, KOLLEGALA TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.PARTHA SARATHY M, ADV.,)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RAMANAGARA TOWN POLICE
REPRESENTED BY
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU – 560 001
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP.,)

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.53/2017 OF RAMANAGARA
TOWN P.S., RAMANAGARA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
498A, 304B OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3, 4 OF D.P. ACT.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest by the respondent –

police in their crime No.53/2017 in respect of the offences
3

under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The allegation is, the deceased Ayeesha was

married to the brother of these petitioners ie., accused No.1.

Dowry in cash and kind was given to the bride groom during

marriage. From the past two months, the accused persons

started harassing the deceased for gold ornaments from her

parents. The deceased was carrying pregnancy for seven

months. On 15.05.2017, the deceased met with unnatural

death in the matrimonial home.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the petitioners are married ladies residing in their respective

marital homes. The allegations made against them in the

complaint is vague, lacking material particulars. They are

innocent of the offences.

4

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits

that the final opinion about cause of death is awaited.

5. Perused the case diary.

6. Investigating Officer during the inquest mahazar is

said to have seized the death note left behind by the

deceased.

7. In the light of the above, there is no impediment to

grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners for the limited period.

8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The

petitioners are granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.53/2017

registered by the respondent – police, subject to the following

condition:

In the event of their arrest by the
respondent – Investigating officer, they
shall be released on bail on executing a
self bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-

5

(Rupees fifty thousand only) each with
one surety for the likesum.

Sd/-

JUDGE
GH

Leave a Comment

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