SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Chand Pasha vs State Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9053/2018
BETWEEN:

Chand Pasha,
Aged about 27 years,
S/o. Shariff Ahamed,
R/at No.232, 2nd Floor,
Sravanakumar Sharma Building,
2nd Cross, Near Poojamma Temple,
SRK Post, Sarai Palya,
Bengaluru – 560 077. … Petitioner

(By Sri. Ranjan Kumar P., Advocate for
Sri. G. Desu Reddy, Advocate of
Sri. G. Desu Reddy Associates)

AND:

State of Karnataka,
Banasawadi Sub-Division,
By Hennur Police Station,
Bengaluru.
Represented by
Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru – 560 001. … Respondent

(By Sri. K.P. Yoganna, HCGP)
2

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Code of Criminal Procedure praying to enlarge the
petitioner on bail in Cr.No.140/2018 of Hennur Police
Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A, Section304B read with Section 34 of IPC.

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this
day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

The petitioner is accused No.1 seeking to be

enlarged on bail in connection with his detention

pursuant to proceedings in Crime No.140/2018 for the

offences punishable under Sections 498(A), Section304(B) of

IPC and Sections 3 and Section4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that a

complaint was lodged alleging that the accused was

harassing the deceased. It is stated that the petitioner

had married the deceased about two years prior to the

incident and certain gold ornaments were given at the

time of marriage. It is further alleged that there were

frequent quarrels between the accused and his wife. It

has also comes out from the complaint that the
3

deceased had left at the parents house on few occasions

and subsequently brought back to stay along with the

petitioner.

3. The case that is made out in the complaint is

that there is a note of the deceased, wherein the

deceased had declared that the petitioner is the cause

for her death. After the complaint was lodged, FIR was

registered, investigation is complete and the charge

sheet has been filed.

4. The learned Sessions judge has rejected the

application of the petitioner observing that prima facie,

case was made out on the basis of the material available

including the statement of witnesses, post mortem

report and inquest mahazar, while also observing that if

the petitioner is allowed, he may tamper the prosecution

witnesses and flee from justice.

4

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that

the question as to whether the deceased had committed

suicide pursuant to the harassment, is a matter to be

proved during trial. It is also contended that the

statements of CWs-20 to 26 clearly state that both

husband and wife were living without much acrimony

and hence, it is contended that the basis of the charge

sheet relying on such statements would not stand

during trial.

6. Taking note of the fact that the investigation

is complete and the charge sheet has been filed. In

matters such as the one on hand, the question as to the

nature of provocation and incidents that may have led

the deceased to commit suicide, is a matter to be proved

during trial. There is some force in the submission of

the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

statements of the neighbours i.e., CWs-20 to 26 records

that husband and wife were living in harmony which
5

also does not support the case of the prosecution in its

entirety.

In the result, the bail petition filed by the

petitioner under Sec. 439 of SectionCr.P.C. is allowed and the

petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.140/2018 for

the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), Section304(B)

of IPC and Sections 3 and Section4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,

subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond
of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with
one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction
of the concerned Court.

(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the
expeditious disposal of the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with
evidence, influence in any way any witness.

(iv) In the event of change of address, the
petitioner to inform the same to the
concerned SHO.

6

(v) Any violation of the aforementioned
conditions by the petitioner, shall result in
cancellation of bail.

Any observation made herein shall not be taken as

an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SJK

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation