Karnataka High Court Kurshid Unnisa vs State By Thilak Park Police on 3 July, 2014Author: Budihal R.B.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3193/2014 C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3194/2014 BETWEEN:
In CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3193/2014 Kurshid Unnisa,
W/o. Gouse peer,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at Near Krishna Bakery,
In CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3194/2014 Mohammed Rafeeq,
S/o. Gouse peer,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at Automobile Shop,
Near Krishna Bakery,
Tumkur-572 101. .. PETITIONERS (By Sri. Bopanna. B, Adv. for
M/s. BPDS Associates)
State by Thilak Park Police,
Rep. by Government Pleader,
High Court Building,
Bangalore. .. RESPONDENT (COMMON)
(By Sri. Nasrulla Khan, HCGP)
The Crl.P.No.3193/2014 is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr. No.65/2014 of Thilak Park P.S., Tumkur, for the offences P/U/S 498(A), 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
The Crl.P.No.3194/2014 is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No.65/2014 of Thilak Park P.S., Tumkur, for the offences P/U/S 498(A), 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. These Criminal Petitions coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER
Since these two petitions are in respect of the same crime number, they have been taken together to disposal by a common order.
2. Crl.P.No.3193/2014 is filed by accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail 3
and Crl.P.No.3194/2014 is filed by accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail, both for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 65/2014.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State in both the petitions.
4. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, order of the lower Court on the bail application and other materials placed on record.
5. The complainant one Sumaya Banu is the wife of accused No.1. It is stated that her marriage was performed with accused No.1 during 2008 and they lived happily for a period of six months and thereafter, 4
for one or the other reason, both the accused persons were giving ill-treatment and harassment to the complainant. Prior to this, on two occasions accused Nos.1 and 2 made an attempt to burn her face with the stove, but they were not succeeded. That on 24.4.2014 at about 10.30 p.m. both the accused persons tied her neck with a rope and hanged her to fan and on her shouting, neighbours came and admitted her to District Hospital, Tumkur and she has taken treatment for a period of three days and then she lodged the complaint against accused persons. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered against accused Nos.1and 2 for the alleged offences.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments has submitted that he has obtained the discharge summary issued from the District Hospital, Tumkur and produced the same which shows that complainant was admitted to the hospital on 26.4.2014 at 12.10 p.m. and she was 5
discharged on 26.4.2014 and it is mentioned in the discharge summary as discharged on request. Firstly, the entries in the discharge summary prima facie falsify the contention of the complainant that on the same day she was admitted to the hospital and took treatment for three days. Apart from that, looking to the date of the complaint, though the alleged incident is said to be on 24.4.2014, but complaint was filed on 4.5.2014 after lapse of 10 days.
7. Petitioners in their respective petitions have contended that they are not involved in the alleged act and they are innocent and that they have been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by the Court. Looking to the delay of 10 days in lodging the complaint so also the entries in the discharge summary, I am of the opinion that petitioners in both the petitions can be admitted to bail by imposing reasonable conditions as the alleged offences are not 6
exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
8. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. The respondent-police are directed to release the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3193/2014 on bail in the event of his arrest and petitioner in Crl.P.No.3194/2014 is ordered to be released on bail, both for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 65/2014, subject to the following conditions: (i) Each petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) They shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
(iii) Petitioner in Crl.P.No.3193/2014 shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for and he shall also appear before the concerned Magistrate Court within 30 days from the date of 7
this order and to execute personal bond and also surety bond.
(iv) Petitioner in Crl.P.No.3194/2014 shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.