Karnataka High Court Afroz vs State By Bhanashankari on 3 March, 2014Author: Budihal R.B.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7086/2013
S/o. Ataulla Khan,
Aged about 29 years,
R/at Near Old Mosque,
Beside Bande Halla,
Banashankari II Stage,
Bangalore-560 082. .. PETITIONER (By Sri. N. Ramesh, Adv.)
State by Banashankari
Rep. by SPP,
High Court Building,
Bangalore-560 001. .. RESPONDENT (By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No.172/2013 of Banashankari P.S., Bangalore city and in C.C. No.8711/13 on the file of the III Addl. 2
C.M.M., Bangalore, for the offences P/U/S 498A and 302 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 307 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No.172/2013 and subsequently, after the death of injured Section 302 of IPC was also inserted in the case.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has not at all committed the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He has also submitted that petitioner is ready to abide 3
by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. Since from the date of arrest, petitioner is in custody. Now the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. Hence, petitioner may be admitted to bail.
4. As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments has submitted that the injured-wife of the present petitioner herself is the complainant in this case. In the complaint she has stated that the petitioner has poured kerosene oil on her and set fire to her and ran away. The dying declaration of the complainant was recorded when she was under treatment in the hospital, wherein also she has stated that it is the petitioner-husband who picked up quarrel with her and poured kerosene oil and set fire to her and because of that reason, she has sustained burn injuries. Later, she expired because of the burn injuries sustained. He has also submitted that even looking to the statement of C.Ws.2, 3 and 4, the mother, father 4
and sister of the deceased, they have clearly stated in their statement about the cruel treatment and the assault made by the present petitioner on the deceased. Accordingly, he has submitted that prosecution has placed prima facie material to show the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences, hence, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other charge sheet material, so also, the order passed by the lower Court on the bail application.
6. Shabreen Taj, wife of petitioner herself is the complainant who lodged the complaint dated 22.4.2013. Looking to the averments made in the complaint it is seen that since from the date of marriage, petitioner used to come home in a drunken state and was making galata with the complainant. That on 22.4.2013, in the 5
morning at 5.00 a.m. petitioner herein stating that he would commit the murder of his wife, poured kerosene oil on her body and lit fire to her. When she cried, he ran away from the place and the neighbours came and extinguished the fire and she was taken to the hospital. In the hospital, the Taluka Executive Magistrate, has recorded the dying declaration of the complainant, wherein also she has stated that her husband used to pick up quarrel by coming to the house in an intoxication mood and when she objected, again picked up quarrel and poured kerosene oil on her and set fire to her. The statements of C.Ws.2, 3 and 4, the mother, father and sister of the deceased also have stated about the cruel treatment given by the present petitioner to deceased. They have also stated in their statement that even on earlier occasion they placed the matter before the Jamat people and they called the present petitioner to the mosque and advised him to correct himself and to treat his wife properly. In spite of such advise by the 6
Jamat people, petitioner continued his ill-treatment to the deceased.
7. Therefore, looking to all these materials placed by the prosecution, they prima facie goes to show the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. There are reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner has committed the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.
Accordingly, petition is rejected. Sd/-