SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mohammad Shabbir Banagar vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 August, 2018

:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101215 OF 2018
C/W. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101216 OF 2018

IN CRL.P.NO.101215 OF 2018:

BETWEEN

MOHAMMAD SHABBIR BANAGAR
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER,
R/O: VISTA LUXURIA C-805,
SOLAPUR MAIN ROAD, NEAR NANDINI
RESTAURANT, HADUPSAR, HAVELI,
LAXMI COLONY, PUNE-412307
… PETITIONER

(BY SRI.K.L.PATIL, FOR SRI.S.B.NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THORUGH GADAG TOWN POLICE STATION GADAG,
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, SPP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO
THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CRIME NO.138/2018 OF GADAG TOWN POLICE
STATION, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
:2:

UNDER SECTION 149, 323, 498A, 504, 506 OF IPC 3 AND 4
OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

IN CRL.P.NO.101216 OF 2018:

BETWEEN

1. MOHAMMAD YASUF JANI
S/O KHAJASAB BANAGAR,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED NMDC
EMPLOYEE, R/O: T.B. DAM HOSAPETE,
DIST: BALLARI.

2. DILSHADBEGUM
W/O MAHAMMAD YUSUF JANI BANAGAR,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: T.B. DAM HOSAPETE,
DIST: BALLARI.
… PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.K.L.PATIL, FOR SRI.S.B.NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THORUGH GADAG TOWN POLICE STATION GADAG,
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH.
… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, SPP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO
THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 3 IN THE EVENT OF
THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.138/2018 OF GADAG TOWN
POLICE STATION, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 149, 323, 498A, 504, 506 OF
IPC 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:3:

ORDER

Both these petitions are filed under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C., wherein the petitioners seek direction to the

respondent-Police to release them on anticipatory bail in

the event of their arrest in Crime No.138 of 2018 of

Gadag Town P.S. for the offences punishable under

Sections 323, 498(A), 504 and 506 read with Section

149 of IPC besides Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned SPP for the respondent in both these

petitions respectively.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are

that the marriage of the complainant with the petitioner-

accused No.1 was performed on 30.08.2015 and during

the marriage, considerable dowry has been given to the

accused. After the marriage, for few days, the complaint

lead happy marital life and thereafter the complainant

blessed with a female child. After some days, there was
:4:

some misunderstanding between the accused as well as

the complainant. Due to the said misunderstanding the

complainant got separated from the petitioner and also

started residing separately at Gadag. All the accused

persons started to give physical and mental harassment

to the complainant, for which she filed complaint on

18.08.2017 under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act

against the petitioner in Crl.P.No.101215 of 2018, as he

being arraigned as accused No.1. Subsequent to filing of

the petition under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act,

the elders tried to settle the dispute amicably. All the

efforts and meeting held by the elders went in vain.

Based upon the complaint filed by the complainant,

crime came to be registered against the accused persons

for the aforesaid offences, but the Police are making

hectic efforts to arrest these petitioners without there

being any reasons, as contended by the counsel.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken

me through the accusation made in the complaint as well

as the substances reflected in the FIR said to be
:5:

recorded by the Police it is relevant to state that during

the marriage of the complainant with the accused No.1,

considerable dowry has been given, despite of it the

accused were insisting the complainant to bring

additional dowry in terms of cash and other articles, the

said allegation made in the complaint is far away from

the truth of the alleged incident. Apart from that, it is

submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and

they hail from respectable family and also having respect

in the eye of society and moreover the petitioners are

ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by

this Court while granting bail to them. On all these

grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioners praying

for anticipatory bail by considering the grounds as urged

in these petitions.

5. On the other hand, the learned SPP during the

course of arguments has taken me through the

averments made in the complaint in Crime No.138 of

2018 and submitted that during the marriage, the

accused received considerable dowry, despite of it the
:6:

accused persons were given physical and mental

harassment to her. The same has been seen in the

material allegation, which find place in the records. It is

further contended that subsequent to committing the

alleged offences, petitioners had absconded from the

clutches of law and that itself indicates that there are

prima facie materials against the petitioners. Therefore,

the learned SPP submits that the petitioners do not

deserve for anticipatory bail and the petition filed by

them be rejected.

6. Having regard to the contentions taken by the

learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned SPP

for the respondent-State in both petitions are concerned,

it is relevant to state that the subsequent to marriage of

the complainant with the petitioner-accused No.1, the

complaint lead happy marital life for few days and

thereafter she blessed with a female child. After some

days, there was some misunderstanding between the

accused as well as the complainant. Due to the said

misunderstanding the complainant got separated from
:7:

the petitioner and also started residing separately at

Gadag. All the accused persons started to give physical

and mental harassment to the complainant, for which

she filed complaint on 18.08.2017 under Section 12 of

Domestic Violence Act against the accused. Subsequent

to filing of the petition under Section 12 of Domestic

Violence Act, the elders tried to settle the dispute

amicably. All the efforts and meeting held by the elders

went in vain. However, subsequent to registration of the

crime against the accused, the case is still under

investigation by the Investigating Officer and it also

requires recording statement of witnesses and securing

the material documents. therefore, at this stage, it does

not require any detail discussion, while considering the

bail petition filed by the petitioners in both these

petitions, as there are substances in the contention of

the learned counsel for the petitioners in seeking the

relief of anticipatory bail and at this stage, it cannot be

said that there are enough materials to decline the bail.

Whereas the learned SPP submits that if the petitioners
:8:

are supposed to be released on bail, certainly they would

come in the way of prosecution case and destroy the

evidence. As this apprehension expressed by the learned

SPP could be curtailed by imposing certain suitable

conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution.

Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as well as in the

circumstances of the case, I am of the considered

opinion that the petitioners deserve for bail. Hence, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petitions filed by the petitioners under Section

438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed, subject to the following

conditions:

(1) The petitioners in both the petitions shall
appear before the Investigating Officer
in Crime No.138 of 2018 of Gadag Town
Police Station within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order and shall execute a bond
for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with
one surety for the like sum to the
satisfaction of him, in the event of their
:9:

arrest by the Gadag Town P.S. in the
said crime.

(2) The petitioners in both the petitions shall
co-operate with Investigating Officer
during the course of investigation.

(3) The petitioners in both the petitions shall
not indulge with any other criminal
activities henceforth.

(4) The petitioners in both the petitions shall
not tamper or hamper the case of
prosecution witnesses.

If the petitioners violate any of the conditions, the

bail order shall automatically stand ceased.

Sd/-

JUDGE
Vnp*

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