1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1218/2017
BETWEEN:
NASRIN,
D/O. LATE C.N. NISAR AHAMED,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/O. 2ND CROSS, DEVANGA BEEDHI,
CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN,
DISTRICT-CHAMARAJANAGAR,
PIN CODE-571 313. … PETITIONER
(Now in Judicial Custody)
(BY SRI SOMASHEKAR KASHIMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH CHAMARAJANAGAR POLICE,
DISTRICT-CHAMARAJANAGAR,
PIN CODE-571 313.
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001. … RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP)
…
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
2
CRIME NO.17/2011 (S.C.NO.57/2016) OF
CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN POLICE STATION,
CHAMARAJANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 498(A) AND 302 R/W 34 OF IPC AND
SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petitioner (accused No.3) along with co-
accused is charge sheeted by the respondent-police in
respect of offences under Sections 498A and 302 r/w 34
of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is, deceased-
Tabasum was married to accused No.1. Dowry in cash
and kind was given at the time of marriage. Some time
after the marriage, the husband and in-laws harassed
the deceased for additional dowry. On 5.2.2011,
petitioner and her mother (accused Nos. 1 and 2)
doused her with kerosene and set her ablaze. While on
treatment, the victim breathed her last on 8.2.2011.
3
3. Except the present petitioner, all other accused
are on bail. Similarly placed accused No.1 is on bail.
Since the petitioner and accused No.1 were absconding,
the case was split up. However, now they have
surrendered. As per submission made at the Bar, in
the main case, five to six witnesses are examined. In
respect of split up charge sheet, charge is yet to be
framed.
4. Without expressing any opinion about the
merits/demerits of the case, for adjudication of this
petition, it is considered that the petitioner claims to be
residing in the cause title address ever since the
registration of FIR and did not abscond. Since she had
no notice of the criminal case, she voluntarily
surrendered before the Court.
5. Considering the fact that similarly placed
accused No.1 – her mother is enlarged on bail and it
4
may consume sufficient time for the case to reach its
logical end, there is no impediment to allow the petition.
6. Petition is allowed. Petitioner is enlarged on
bail on her executing a self bond for a sum of Rs. Two
Lakhs with two sureties for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the concerned Court. She shall attend
the concerned Court regularly on all the hearing dates
and shall not tamper or allure any of the prosecution
witnesses.
Sd/-
Judge
Nsu/-