IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.696/2019

BETWEEN:

Mohamed Khaja @ Khaja Mohamed,
S/o Alla Bakash,
Aged 23 years,
No.264, 1st Floor, 16th A Cross,
Devarajurs Nagar,
Halegudadhahalli, J.J.Nagar,
Bangalore – 560 026.
…Petitioner
(By Sri.G.Muralidhar, Advocate)

AND:

The State of Karnataka,
By J.J.Nagar Police Station,
Bangalore – 560 026.
Represented by SPP,
High Court.
…Respondent
(By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.217/2018 Jagajeevanram Nagar Police Station for
the offences P/U/S 304B, 498A, read with Section 34 of
IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act.
-2-

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

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the

petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.,

seeking his release on bail in Crime No.217/2018 of

Jagajeevanram Nagar Police Station for the offences

punishable under Section 304B, 498A read with Section

34 of IPC and also Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent-State.

3. Gist of the complaint is that the deceased is

the younger sister of the complainant. Earlier deceased

got married to one-Matheen and thereafter, she took

divorce. It is further stated that subsequently, the

deceased got married with the petitioner/accused No.1
-3-

on 22.07.2018 by giving a cash of Rupees One and half

Lakh, gold chain, finger ring, bracelet and other jewels.

After the marriage, the deceased used to reside with her

husband. The sisters of accused No.1 were also used to

reside in the fourth and first floors of the same building.

It is further alleged that the parents of the

petitioner/accused No.1 went to Haj pilgrimage. At that

time, petitioner/accused No.1 along with his sisters,

took up quarrel and assaulted the deceased and also

sent back to her parental house for brining additional

dowry of Rs.50,000/- for paying advance to the separate

house. The deceased went to the parental house and

stayed for some days. When the complainant’s family

members said that they cannot do it for the present and

asked the deceased to wait till her father-in-law and

mother-in-law return from Haj pilgrimage, the deceased

came back to the house of the petitioner/accused No.1.

Because of fear of harassment and other things, she

committed suicide by hanging in the house of the
-4-

petitioner/accused No.1. On the basis of the complaint,

a case has been registered.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel

for the petitioner that already the charge sheet has been

filed and the petitioner/accused No.1 is not required for

the purpose of further investigation or interrogation. It

is further submitted that already accused Nos.2 and 3

have been granted anticipatory bail. On the ground of

parity, the petitioner/accused No.1 is also entitled to be

released on bail. Further it is submitted that earlier,

the deceased got married to one-Matheen and as she

was not cordial with her first husband, she got divorce

again, she got married with the petitioner/accused

No.1. There were no demand of dowry, ill-treatment

and harassment caused by the petitioner/accused No.1.

It is further submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1

is innocent and he has not scolded or assaulted the

deceased. He is ready to abide by the conditions
-5-

imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer surety.

On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to

release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the

death of the deceased has taken place within two

months from the date of the marriage. It is further

submitted that the sisters of petitioner/accused No.1

were also residing in the same building and they started

demanding additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- for payment

of advance to have a bigger house. She further

submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1 along with

his sisters, abused and demanded for money of

Rs.50,000/- and even they have sent back the deceased

to her parental house. When the money was not

arranged, because of fear and harassment, the deceased

committed suicide by hanging. She further submitted

that the neighbors of the house of the
-6-

petitioner/accused No.1, has clearly stated that prior to

the alleged incident, the deceased was in a depressed

mood and was weeping. When the same was

questioned with her, the deceased disclosed about the

ill-treatment and harassment caused on her by the

petitioner/accused No.1. It is further submitted that

there is a presumption in law that it is a dowry death.

The death has taken place in a matrimonial house and

no proper explanation has been given by the

petitioner/accused No.1. There is prima-facie material

to connect the petitioner/accused No.1 to the alleged

crime. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the

petition.

6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through

the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing

for both the parties and perused the records.

7. On close reading of the contents of the

complaint and other materials, it indicates that the
-7-

deceased got married with petitioner/accused No.1 on

22.07.2018 and it is also not in dispute that in the

fourth and first floor of the same building, the sisters of

the petitioner/accused No.1 were also residing. The

contents of the petition and complaint indicates that

there was ill-treatment and harassment. Accused No.1

and sisters were also abusing and compelling the

deceased to bring Rs.50,000/-. When the amount was

not arranged, because of ill-treatment and harassment

caused on her by the accused persons, she committed

suicide by hanging. When the death has taken place in

matrimonial house, accused has to come with the

explanation that under what circumstance, the death of

the deceased has taken place. It is contended that the

deceased got married the petitioner/accused No.1 for

the second time. Because she was not cordial with her

former husband, she might have married the

petitioner/accused No.1 against her will. In order to

substantiate the said fact, no material has been
-8-

produced. The death has taken place in the

matrimonial house, as per Section 106 of The Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 the accused has to explain under

what circumstance, the death has taken place. When

the same has not been explained, it can be inferred that

the petitioner/accused No.1 is responsible for the

alleged act and the death of the deceased. There

appears to be prima-facie material as against the

petitioner/accused No.1. Hence, I feel that it is not a fit

case to release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail.

Hence, petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VBS