IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9645/2018

BETWEEN:

Mohammed Samiulla
S/o Mohammed Anwar,
Aged about 34 years,
Occ: Proprietor,
M/s Inosys Technologies,
R/at # 18/1, 3rd Main,
15th Cross, Lakkasandra,
Bengaluru – 560 030.
…Petitioner
(By Sri C.H. Jadhav, Senior counsel for
Sri. K. Ram Singh, Advocate)

AND:
State of Karnataka by
Adugodi Police Station,
Bengaluru – 560 030.
Rep. by Government Pleader,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru – 560 001. … Respondent

(By Sri. M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.272/2018 of Adugodi Police Station, Bengaluru for
-2-

the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302
of IPC.

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 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.,

seeking his release on bail in Crime No.272/2018 of

Adugodi Police Station for the offences punishable

under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC.

2. I have heard Sri. C.H. Jadhav, learned

Senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M. Divakar

Maddur, learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent-State.

3. Gist of the complaint is that the daughter of

the complainant got married with the accused on

07.09.2017. Thereafter, they were residing at Shoba

Apartments, Bannerghatta. As the character of the

petitioner was not good, there was quarrel between the
-3-

daughter of the complainant and the accused petitioner.

It is further alleged that the complainant came to know

the fact that earlier, the petitioner got married

subsequently, obtained divorce and thereafter, got

married to the complainant’s daughter. It is further

alleged that the complainant and his family members

were restrained from visiting the house of the petitioner

and also restrained from calling the daughter of the

complainant and there was ill-treatment and

harassment. The said factor was pacified by the elder

members. It is further alleged that after 40 days i.e., on

27.10.2018 at about 5.30 p.m., the accused petitioner

intentionally pushed the deceased from second floor.

Due to the injuries, the deceased succumbed to death

on the same day at about 8.25 p.m., at Victoria

Hospital. On the basis of the complaint, a case came to

be registered.

-4-

4. It is the submission of the learned Senior

counsel for the petitioner that the complaint filed on

28.10.2018, does not make any allegation either

demand of dowry or ill-treatment and harassment. Even

though there is some allegation, the allegation is only

minor and an altercation has taken place, which will

take place in the family. It is further submitted that

when the Tahsildar has recorded the unnatural death

therein in question No.27, he has mentioned that there

is no suspicion for having committed the crime and

there is no suspicion against anybody. It is submitted

that after two days of the incident, the voluntary

statement has been recorded and the complaint has

been registered stating a new story that the accused

pushed the deceased and committed the murder of the

deceased. It is further submitted that the voluntary

statement of the accused petitioner clearly go to show

that it is an accidental death and the accused petitioner

is nothing to do with the same and he was not having
-5-

any intention or he is not involved in the alleged crime.

Immediately he has informed the parents and took the

injured to the hospital. The said conduct clearly goes to

show that the accused was not the person who has

caused the said act. He is ready to abide by the

conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to

offer the surety. On these grounds, he prayed to allow

the petition and to release the petitioner/accused on

bail.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the

statement of Smt. Shaheena Taj and Bibi Ameena and

other witnesses clearly go to show that on 16.09.2018

the accused had ill-treated and harassed. It is further

submitted that there was sufficient material to show

that everyday he used to harass the deceased both

physically and mentally and unnecessarily he used to

quarrel with the deceased. In that context, he took the
-6-

accused to the second floor and from there he pushed

with an intention to kill her. As a result of the injuries,

the deceased succumbed to death. The said act clearly

goes to show that the accused with an intention to

cause the death of the deceased, has pushed her from

the second floor and the said offence is punishable with

death or imprisonment for life. He further submitted

that there is consistency in the statement of the

deceased and the neighbors. On these grounds, he

prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through

the submissions made by both the learned counsel

appearing for the parties and during the course of

arguments, the charge sheet material was also made

available and I have carefully and cautiously gone

through the charge sheet materials.

7. As could be seen from the contents of the

complaint, it indicates that the complaint has been filed
-7-

on 28.10.2018 there is no other allegation to show that

there was demand of dowry and the other materials

indicates that there is one word that the minor

altercation has taken place between the husband and

wife and they also advised in this behalf. Even as could

be seen from the said compliant, the compliant has filed

only with a suspicion against the accused petitioner and

while filing the complaint, it is not stated that it is the

petitioner, who pushed the deceased from second floor

and caused the injuries with an intention to kill her.

Even the statement which has been recorded by the

Tahsildar therein, it is only suspicion has been

expressed. On scrutiny of the entire charge sheet

material in indicates that it is only on the basis of

suspicion the said complaint has been registered. If

really there was an ill-treatment and harassment as

contended, immediately when they received the phone

call at about 5.30 p.m., they would have lodged a

compliant against him. But the complaint was lodged
-8-

at about 10.50 p.m. on the same day, but the said

allegations have not been made in this behalf. Looking

from any angle there is only suspicion about the case,

whether it is an accidental death or an intentional

death? The said fact has to be considered and

appreciated only at the time of trial but not at this pre-

mature stage. Already the charge sheet has been filed

and the custodial continuation of the petitioner is not

necessary. The trial may take some more time. In that

light, I feel that by imposing some stringent conditions,

if the accused petitioner is ordered to be released on

bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice. In the light

of discussions held by me above, petition is allowed.

8. Petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail in

Crime No.272/2018 of Adugodi Police Station for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of

IPC subject to the following conditions:
-9-

1. Petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond
for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs
only) with two sureties for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the trial Court.

2. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court
without prior permission.

3. He shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e.,
1st of every month between 10.00 a.m., and 5.00
p.m., before the jurisdictional police station, till
the trial is concluded.

4. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence
directly or indirectly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VBS