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