Tabrez vs State on 28 November, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8626/2017
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8379/2017

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8626/2017
BETWEEN:

TABREZ @ THABARESH
S/O ABDUL RAHIM
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/A @ 285, NRN COMPLEX,
YESHWANTHPUR,
BANGALORE 560 022.
… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADV.)

AND:

STATE BY YESHWANTHPURA POLICE
STATION, BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX BUILDING
BANGALORE – 560001.
…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)
2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.377/2017 OF YESHWANTHAPURA
POLICE STATION IN BENGALURU CITY FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 498(A), 304(B) R/W 34 OF IPC.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8379/2017
BETWEEN:

PARVEZ @ PRAVEES
S/O ABDUL RAHIM
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/A @ 285, NRN COMPLEX,
YESHWANTHPUR,
BANGALORE 560 022.
… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADV.)

AND:

STATE BY YESHWANTHPURA POLICE
STATION, BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX BUILDING
BANGALORE – 560001.
…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
3

BAIL IN CRIME NO. 377/2017 OF YESHWANTHAPURA
POLICE STATION IN BENGALURU CITY FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 498(A), 304(B) R/W 34 OF IPC.

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Since these two petitions are in respect of same

crime and common questions of law and facts are

involved in both these petitions, they have been taken

together in order to avoid repetition of discussion of law

and facts and to dispose of them by this common order

2. Crl.P.8626/2017 is filed by

petitioner/accused No.1, who is the husband of the

deceased and Crl.P.8379/2017 is filed by

petitioner/accused No.3, who is the brother-in-law of

the deceased. Both these petitions are filed by the

petitioners/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

seeking their release on bail of the offences punishable
4

under Sections 498A, 304B read with 34 of IPC,

registered in respondent – police station Crime

No.377/2017.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners/accused and also the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners during

the course of his arguments has submitted that looking

to the complaint averments there is no prima-facie case

made out as against the petitioners herein about their

involvement in committing the alleged offence. So far as

petitioner/accused No.1, who is the husband of the

deceased, is concerned, in the first part of the complaint

absolutely there are no allegations against him, it is

only at the later part of the complaint, when he alleged

to be returned from Dubai and at the instigation of
5

other accused persons, he too started giving ill-

treatment demanding dowry and insisting the deceased

to bring dowry. He also submitted that looking to the

allegations made in the complaint, there are similar set

of allegations even against other accused persons also.

He has further submitted that accused Nos.2 and 4 are

already granted bail by the order of the learned Sessions

Judge. The major portion of the investigation is already

competed. He also submitted that petitioners were not

absconded, accused No.3 was arrested immediately and

accused No.1 was assaulted, he was admitted to

hospital and he was arrested from the hospital itself.

Hence, submitted that by imposing reasonable

conditions petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader, during the course of his arguments has

submitted that the death has taken place within a
6

period of seven years of marriage, under Section 113(b)

of Evidence Act there is an initial presumption that it is

a dowry death and the burden is on the accused person

to rebut the said presumption. He submitted that there

are allegations in the complaint that petitioners were

insisting the deceased to bring dowry amount and the

deceased used to tell before the complainant and other

family members about the same. He has also submitted

that the incident has taken place in the house of the

petitioners herein, therefore, they have to explain the

circumstances under which the death has taken place.

He has further submitted that according to the other

side, if the deceased committed suicide because of the

reason that husband was going back to Dubai, nothing

prevented any of the petitioners/accused to lodge the

complaint narrating the same thing, which they have

not done in this case. Petitioners were also absconded,

though the incident is on 03.10.2017, accused No.1 was
7

apprehended on 13.10.2017. Hence, he submitted to

reject the petition.

6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on

record.

7. Looking to the submission made by the

learned counsel on both sides at the bar, investigation

is still going on and Investigation Officer has to file the

final report before the Court. Therefore, when the

investigation is still going on, at this stage without

making any comments on the merits of the main case,

petitions are disposed of with the liberty to the

petitioners to approach the concerned Court after

completion of investigation and filing of final report in

the matter.

In view of the disposal of the main petitions,

I.A.No.1/2017 filed in Crl.P.8626/2017 does not arise
8

for consideration. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2017 filed in

Crl.P.8626/2017 is also disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BSR

Leave a Comment

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