Samiulla @ Samiulla Khan vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 January, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10180/2017

BETWEEN:

1. SAMIUALLA @ SAMIULLA KHAN
S/O. JIAULLA KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT HOUSE NO. 69/5,
AHMED NAGAR,
GALIPURA EXTENSION,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN,
571313

2. APSAR PASHA
S/O. LATE. M I GAFUR,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT NO. 191,
BEEDI COLONY, WARD NO. 4,
GALIPURA EXTENSION,
CHAMARAJANAGAR
TOWN – 571 313.
.. PETITIONERS

(BY SRI MANJUNATH N D, ADVOCATE)
2

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH CHAMARAJNAGAR
TOWN PS, CHAMARAJANAGAR
DIST-571313,
REP. BY SPP HIGH
COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE 01. .. RESPONDENT

(BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.225/2017 OF
CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN P.S., CHAMARAJANAGAR
DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 302, 506,
201 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT.

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

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused

No.11 and 12 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking

anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to

release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest

for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302,
3

506, 201 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, registered in respondent police

station Crime No.225/2017. One Bibi Aisha is the

deceased and her brother Sri.Jameer Pasha has lodged

the complaint in this case.

2. 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.

3. The case of the prosecution as per the

complaint averments that husband of the deceased and

his family members were giving ill-treatment and

harassment to the deceased insisting her to bring the

amount from her parental place. The further allegation

that the petitioners herein did not allow the body of the

deceased to be shifted to the parental place and insisted

that funeral is to be done at the said place itself. On the
4

basis of the said complaint, FIR came to be registered

against accused Nos.1 to 10. No doubt, it is also

mentioned in the FIR as other local Muslim leaders.

4. Perusing the complaint and other materials

insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned, there is

no allegation that they have participated in giving ill-

treatment and harassment to the deceased. The only

allegation which appears in the statement of witnesses

recorded during investigation is that petitioners did not

allow the complainant to take the dead body of the

deceased to their native place and they insisted that it is

to be buried at the said place as per the Muslim

customs. On the basis of such statement by the

witnesses, though the names of the petitioners were not

figured either in the complaint or in the FIR, they came

to be arrayed as accused Nos.11 and 12.

5

5. Looking into the materials placed on record,

at the most the petitioners are responsible for the

alleged offence under Section 201 of IPC for screening

the evidence, but so far as the main incident and for the

offence under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC are

concerned, there is no material as against the

petitioners. Petitioners have contended in the petition

that they are innocent and not involved in committing

the alleged offences and there is false implication.

Petitioners have also undertaken to abide by any

conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, looking

into these materials, I am of the opinion that it is a fit

case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners

and to release them on bail.

6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The

respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present

petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the
6

alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A, 302,

506, 201 read with 149 of IPC and under Sections 3 and

4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered in respondent

police station Crime No.225/2017, subject to the

following conditions:

i. Petitioners shall execute a personal bond
for Rs.1,00,000/- each and shall furnish
one surety for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the arresting authority.

ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of
the prosecution witnesses, directly or
indirectly.

iii. Petitioners have to make themselves
available before the Investigating Officer
for interrogation, as and when called for
and to cooperate with the further
investigation.

iv. Petitioners have to appear before the
concerned Court within 30 days from the
date of this order and to execute the
personal bond and the surety bond.

Sd/-

JUDGE
BSR

Leave a Comment

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