1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4970/2017
BETWEEN
Mahamed Raffiq
s/o Mohamed Anif
aged about 30 years
Labourer
r/o Rajeevghandhinagara
Tumakuru Town
Tumakuru Taluk
Tumakuru District-572101. .. Petitioner
(By Sri Chethan B, Advocate)
AND
The State of Karnataka
Thilak Park Police
Tumakuru – 572 101
Tumakuru District
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bangalore-560001. .. Respondent
(By Sri K Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
2
This criminal petition is filed u/S.439 Cr.P.C
praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.82/2016 of Thilak Park Police Station, Tumakuru
District for the offences p/u/s 498A, 302 of IPC.
This criminal petition coming on for orders this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail
for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 of
IPC registered in respondent – police station Crime
No.82/2016.
2. The facts of the prosecution case as per the
complaint averments, the mother is the complainant of
the deceased. On 28.2.2016, her daughter got married
to the accused and subsequent to the marriage, she
stayed happily for a period of five months along with her
husband and her-in-laws house situated at Heggade
colony. For the past one month, her son-in-law and her
3
daughter stayed in a rented house at Rajivgandhinagar
and at that point of time, the accused subjected her
both physical and mental cruelty and forced her to
bring additional dowry. Whenever the accused went to
work, he left her daughter at their place and forced her
to bring additional dowry. On the said day, when the
daughter of the complainant did not come to their
house, she sent her son to her daughter’s house and
when he went and saw the deceased suffering and
struggling, and her son informed his mother, who went
and asked her daughter and the daughter informed that
her husband/accused had assaulted her and squeezed
her neck and tried to kill her. Immediately the
complainant took her daughter to Tumkur Government
Hospital and got her admitted and on the same day at
about 4.00 p.m. due to failure in the treatment, she
died. Hence, the complaint was lodged and registered
4
for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and
302 of IPC.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the respondent –
State.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
made a submission that the petitioner never ill-treated
the deceased either physically or mentally. He had
treated the deceased properly. The learned counsel
submits that the deceased was suffering from low BP
and that is the reason for her death. He also made a
submission that the dying declaration of the deceased
was not recorded. The learned counsel further submits
that even looking into the entire prosecution materials,
there is no prima facie case. He also submits that now
the investigation is completed and charge sheet is also
5
filed. The petitioner is in custody since one year.
Hence, he submitted that by imposing reasonable
conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to regular
bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader made a submission that looking to the
prosecution materials, there is prima facie case showing
the involvement of petitioner in committing the offences.
Learned Government Pleader also made a submission
that looking to the prosecution materials collected
during the investigation, they go to show that even in
the medical evidence, the illness caused the death of the
deceased is consistent with other materials on record.
It is alleged that the petitioner and the deceased were
residing in a rented house. Therefore, the burden is on
the petitioner to explain the circumstances under which
6
the death is taken place. Hence, the petitioner is not
entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail
petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in
the case.
7. Looking to the complaint averments, it is
stated by the mother of the deceased that after getting
information, she came to the house of the present
petitioner and enquired her daughter, who informed her
mother that her husband pressed the neck forcibly and
made an attempt to commit her murder. So this is the
statement made in the complaint after the death of the
deceased. Such statement becomes oral dying
declaration regarding the cause of death. I have also
perused the medical records. The doctor, who
conducted the autopsy over the body, gave his opinion
that the cause of death is due to manual strangulation.
7
So the opinion of the doctor is consistent with that of
the statement made by the deceased before her mother.
Apart from that, the materials collected during the
investigation also goes to show that the deceased as well
as the present petitioner were residing in a rented
house. When that is so, the petitioner/accused has to
explain the circumstances as per the principle under
Section 106 of Evidence Act. These facts are exclusively
within the knowledge of the present petitioner.
Considering these aspects of the matter, I am opinion
that this is not a fit case to grant bail in favour of the
petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bkm.
