SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Fayaz Abdul Jabbar Karkomakki vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2018

:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

CRL.P.NO.100351 OF 2018
BETWEEN:

1. FAYAZ ABDUL JABBAR KARKOMAKKI,
A/A 22 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O VIDYANAGAR, MARATHIKOPPA,
TAL-SIRSI, U.K.DIST.

2. SMT.MAIRUNNISA W/O ABDUL JABBAR KARKOMAKKI,
A/A 58 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,’
R/O VIDYANAGAR, MARATHIKOPPA,
TAL-SIRSI, U.K.DIST.

3. SMT.UMMESALMA W/O ISTIYAK AHAMMAD KARKOMAKKI,
A/A 29 YEARS, COOLIE,
R/O VIDYANAGAR, MARATHIKOPPA,
TAL-SIRSI, U.K.DIST.
…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.A.P.HEGDE JANMANE SRI.VIJAY M.MALALI, ADVS.)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNTAKA,
BY BANAVASI POLICE STATION,
TALUK SIRSI, U.K.DIST. R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARANATAKA, DHARWAD.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.ANAND K.NAVALGIMATH, HCGP)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING THAT PETITONER NOS.1 TO 3/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3
ARE ENLARGE ON REGULAR BAIL IN BANAVASI POLICE
STATION CRIME NO.10/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 306 AND 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF
III ADDL. JMFC, SIRSI.
:2:

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

ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for

grant of regular bail in crime No.10/2018 registered by

respondent-police for the offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

2. The FIR is registered on the basis of the compliant

lodged by one Abdul Ajim alleging that his daughter was

married to petitioner No.1(accused No.1) on 15.09.2017.

After one month of the marriage, the petitioners started ill-

treating and harassing the deceased in the matrimonial

home. She was pregnant for three months. About 7 days

earlier to the incident, she was not keeping well and

hence, the complainant took her to his house. On the date

of the incident, i.e., on 31.01.2018 at about 10.20 a.m.

the deceased received a phone call from petitioner No.3

and at about 11.30 a.m. she locked herself in the room

and committed suicide by hanging to the roof of the house.
:3:

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the incident took place in the paternal house of the

deceased. There was no immediate provocation

whatsoever by the petitioners. Except making general

allegations, the complaint does not contain any specific

accusations against any one of the petitioners. Petitioner

No.3 has a small child to be looked into and she has been

kept in custody since last 40 days. Hence, he seeks

enlargement of the petitioners on bail on stringent

conditions as found appropriate by this Court.

4. The learned High Court Government Pleader has

opposed the petition contending that the investigation is in

progress and the allegations levelled against the

petitioners are required to be investigated. In such

circumstances, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there

is likelihood of the petitioners either threatening the

witnesses or tampering with the evidence.

5. It is not in dispute that the deceased committed

suicide within five months from the date of her marriage.

There are clear allegations that she was subjected to ill-
:4:

treatment and harassment in the matrimonial home by the

petitioners, yet the incident is stated to have taken place

in the paternal house of the deceased. Though in the

complaint it is alleged that prior to the commission of the

offence, the deceased received a phone call from petitioner

No.3 which is projected as the immediate provocation to

commit the suicide by the deceased, but there is nothing in

the complaint to suggest that any time earlier to the

incident, the deceased had either complained to her

parents or to any other elders about the alleged ill-

treatment in the matrimonial home. No doubt the matter

requires to be investigated, but I do not find it necessary

to extend the custody of the petitioners solely by way of

punishment. Hence, taking into consideration all the above

facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the

petitioners deserve to be admitted to bail. Hence, the

following:

ORDER

The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The

petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in crime
:5:

No.10/2018 of Banavasi Police Station on furnishing a

bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)

each with two sureties each for the likesum to the

satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following

conditions.

i) Petitioners shall appear before the trial Court

as and when required.

ii) Petitioners shall not threaten or lure the

prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper

the evidence.

iii) Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of

the trial Court without prior permission.

iv) Petitioners shall mark their attendance in

Banavasi Police Station on the 1st and 15th of

every calendar month until the submission of

the final report.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MBS/-

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