Karnataka High Court Mohammed Ilyas vs State Of Karnataka By on 16 April, 2014Author: Budihal R.B.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1973/2014
Aged about 45 years,
S/o. Ghouse Baig,
R/a. Flat No.5,
Musvee Residency, #25,
Hall Road, Richards Town,
Bangalore 560 005. .. PETITIONER (By Sri. S.A. Wajid, Adv.)
State of Karnataka,
By Pulikeshi Nagar P.S.,
(Frazer Town P.S.),
Bangalore 560 005. .. RESPONDENT (By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition 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.382/2013 of Pulakeshinagar P.S., Bangalore City, pending on the file of the XI Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore, for the offences P/U/S 498A and 307 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER
Heard the learned counsel who filed the application under Section 301(2) read with proviso to Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the learned counsel for the petitioner on the said application. Application is allowed. Learned counsel is permitted to assist the prosecution.
2. This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A and 307 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No.382/2013.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 and also the learned 3
Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, so also, the counsel who came on record to assist the learned Government pleader.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that petitioner has not at all given any sort of ill-treatment or harassment to the complainant and there is no prima facie material placed by the prosecution to show that he has committed the alleged offences. On the contrary, it is the complainant who was not at all co-operating with the present petitioner in the marital life and unnecessarily picking up quarrel with the petitioner. Even with regard to the injuries sustained by the complainant it is submitted that they are self inflicted injuries to make out a false case against the petitioner. She has obtained the injury certificate and thereafter she went to the police station and lodged the complaint in this case. This itself shows the falsity of the complainant’s case. Even as per the injury certificate, 4
all the injuries are simple in nature. Hence, it is submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
5. As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments has submitted that about the assault made on the complainant by the petitioner, she has mentioned in detail in her complaint. The children of the complainant are the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and the medical certificate also shows that the petitioner caused injuries to the complainant. Hence, it is submitted that the prosecution has placed prima facie material to show the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. Since from the date of incident petitioner is absconding, hence, he is not entitled to be granted with bail.
6. Learned counsel who has come on record to assist the prosecution has also submitted that there is 5
ill-treatment and harassment meted out to the complainant by the present petitioner throughout her marital life of which, she has mentioned in the complaint. She has also submitted that the injury certificate produced in the case also supports the case of the prosecution and at this stage if the petitioner is granted with bail, there is every likelihood that again he may trouble the complainant and may also abscond. Hence, submitted that petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
7. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. As per the averments made in the complaint dated 28.12.2013, petitioner was always insisting the complainant to pay the money, as such she was working and earning money. She had done cloth business and also started hotel business to earn money. 6
When she refused to give money, on 27.12.2013 at 8.00 a.m. petitioner picked up fight with the complainant demanding money and assaulted her on her abdomen, face and hands. There are also allegations in the complaint that he caused injuries with the knife and tried to kill her.
9. I have perused the injury certificate issued by the Doctor who examined the complainant. The Doctor has mentioned that there are five injuries and that injury Nos.1 to 3 are cut lacerated wounds. Looking to these materials on record, prima facie it goes to show that the present petitioner has assaulted the complainant with knife and caused injuries. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that these injuries are self inflicted only to make out a case against the petitioner, it is not the stage for this Court to examine all these things. The same would be ascertained during the course of trial. At this stage, Court has to see prima facie, whether on the 7
basis of the material on record, it makes out a case about the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences.
10. Looking to the materials on record, I am of the opinion that prosecution has placed prima facie material to make out a case as against the petitioner. Therefore, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, petition is rejected. Sd/-