SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mohammed Shujayath vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 April, 2014

Karnataka High Court Mohammed Shujayath vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 April, 2014Author: Budihal R.B.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2014 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION No.1355/2014

BETWEEN:

Mohammed Shujayath,

Aged about 29 years,

S/o. Mohammed Sharfuddin @ Ahmed,

R/at No.23, 1st Cross,

1st Main Road,

Kanakanagar,

R.T. Nagar Post,

Bangalore-560 032. .. PETITIONER (By Sri. R.K. Mahadeva, Adv. for

Sri Syed Ummer, Adv.)

AND:

The State of Karnataka,

By D.J. Halli Police Station,

‘Bangalore-560 045. .. 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.455/2013 of D.J. Halli P.S., for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

2

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

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent police that in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail of the offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.455/2013.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

3. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record.

4. Looking to the case of the prosecution as per the complaint, it is alleged that the petitioner and the complainant were married on 28.4.2012. At the time of 3

engagement performed on 14.2.2012 at Adams Golden Heritage, Bangalore, nearly Rs.10.00 lakh was spent. Thereafter, a sum of Rs.50.00 lakh was spent for marriage. The petitioner and his parents started demanding more dowry of Rs.60.00 lakh. It is also alleged that the petitioner as well as the other members of his family gave ill treatment to the complainant and driven her out from the house. Hence, she came to her parental place. Looking to the complaint itself, it is mentioned at page No.9 in para 2, that about 5-6 months back, the petitioner and his parents demanded the complainant to bring Rs.60-00 lakh from her parents for opening second hand cars show room and also for doing real estate business. She refused to bring the said amount. After one month, all the said persons thrown her out of the house. During that time, she has not disclosed demand of Rs.60.00 lakh, but disclosed about harassment. In the complaint, the complainant has admitted regarding alleged demand of Rs.60.00 lakh to be paid to the petitioner and his family members, but she has not mentioned earlier before the elders or before the family members and she has mentioned only about harassment. Therefore, the question 4

as to whether the petitioner has demanded Rs.60.00 lakh or not, is a matter to be proved by the complainant during the course of trial.

5. So far as the alleged harassment and ill treatment is concerned, it is contended by the petitioner that false allegations are made against himself and his family members. He never ill treated the complainant and never demanded more amount from the complainant. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also produced a certificate dated 4.1.2014 issued by the Al Jamiathun Nooria, Branch (Belwadhalli), Madiwala, Bangalore, which shows that the petitioner has given talak to the complainant in the presence of Jamiathun elders. The petitioner has undertaken in the petition that he is ready to abide by any condition to be imposed by this Court. The alleged offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and they are not punishable for death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner can be admitted to bail. 5

6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondent police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.455/2013, subject to the following conditions: I. The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees thousand only) and shall offer one surety for the likesum to the concerned Magistrate Court.

II. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for the purpose of interrogation, whenever called upon to do so.

III. The petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. IV. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court within thirty days from the date of this order and shall execute personal bond as well as surety bond.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Cs/-

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