1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3526 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
FARHA ASHRIFFI
W/O MAQSOOD KHAN MOHAMMED ZAI
D/O SYED NAZMUDDIM ASRAFFI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/A NO.L-3, LECTURE QUARTERS
BENGALURU UNIVERSITY
JNANABHARATHI
BENGALURU-560056 … PETITIONER
(BY SRi: KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE STATION
BENGALURU
REP BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001
2. SRI MAQSOOD KHAN MOHAMMED ZAI
S/O SRI KHASIM KHAN MOHAMMED ZAI
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/A NO.177, 11TH MAIN
BIKASIPURA YALECHANAHALLI
BENGALURU-560062 … RESPONDENTS
(SRI: S.VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP FOR R1
SRI: MOHAMMED ARIF KHAN MAKKI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI: MASOOD ALI KHAN MECCI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
2
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE
THE PETITIONER ON BAIL TO CANCEL THE BAIL ORDER DATED
02.05.2018 IN CRL.MISC.NO.3338/2018 PASSED BY THE XLV
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY
(CCH-46) AND ISSUE NBW TO THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT NO.2.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP
for respondent No.1 – State and learned counsel for respondent
No.2.
2. Petitioner has sought for cancellation of the bail on
the solitary ground that respondent No.2 has violated condition
No.5 in Crl.Misc.No.3338/2018 dated 02.05.2018. The condition
reads as under:
“5. He shall not commit similar offence or
any offence during the pendency of case.”
3. During the hearing, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that respondent No.2 has also violated
condition No.3 by issuing threats, directly and indirectly, to the
persons acquainted with the facts of the case.
3
4. According to the petitioner, she had initiated a
criminal action against respondent No.2 under sections 498A and
506 of Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. The said case ended in acquittal by order
dated 21.9.2017 in C.C.No.15428/2017. According to the
petitioner, in the said case, the parties arrived at a compromise
and since then, the parties are residing separately. If so, there
was absolutely no occasion for respondent No.2 either to
threaten the victim or other witnesses. Even otherwise, no
specific instances are pleaded in the petition. The petitioner has
not produced any material to show that respondent No.2 is
involved in any similar offence during the pendency of the case
arising out of Crime No.23/2018 of Basavanagudi Police Station.
Hence, no grounds to cancel the bail.
Accordingly, criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bss
