1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9880/2017
BETWEEN:
1. SRI JAMEEL PASHA
S/O ABDUL LATHEEF
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
2. SMT.SHAMEEMUNNISA
W/O ABDUL LATEEF
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
3. SMT.NAIMUNNISA
W/O ASLAM
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
4. SMT.HALIMA
D/O ABDUL LATHEEF
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT
NO.213/9, KARNATAKA LAYOUT
II STAGE, KAVERI NAGAR
KURUBARAHALLI
BENGALURU – 560 079.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.ABDUL WAJID S A., ADV.)
2
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BASAVESHWARA NAGAR POLICE STATION
BENGALURU CITY.
REP. BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-01.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN
CR.NO.330/2017 OF BASAVESHWARA NAGAR P.S.,
BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
307,323,498A,506,34 OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused
Nos.1 to 4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking
anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to
release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest
for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 307,
498A, 323 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
3
Dowry Prohibition Act registered in respondent police
station Crime No.330/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners/accused and also the
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent-State.
3. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail
petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on
record, so also, the order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the
petitioners herein.
4. Perusing the complaint averments, it shows
that petitioner No.1/accused No.1 has made a separate
house for the residence of petitioner No.1 and the
complainant. The allegations as against accused No.1
is that he was demanding dowry and also administering
4
phenol to the complainant. Therefore, looking to these
allegations in the complaint, so far as petitioners Nos.2
to 4/accused Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, there are
general and bald allegations made and no specific
allegations are made against them. Not only that, the
complainant is residing separately along with petitioner
No.1 (husband). Therefore, looking to these materials, I
am of the opinion that so far as petitioner No.1 is
concerned, it is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail,
but so far as petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are concerned,
looking to the materials and their contention that they
have been falsely implicated in the case, I am of the
opinion that they can be granted with anticipatory bail
by imposing reasonable conditions.
5. Accordingly, petition in so far as petitioner
No.1 is rejected and petition in respect of petitioner
Nos.2 to 4, is allowed. The respondent-Police is
5
directed to enlarge petitioner Nos.2 to 4, who are
accused Nos.2 to 4, on bail in the event of their arrest in
connection with Crime No.330/2017 registered for the
above said offences, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 shall execute a
personal bond for Rs.50,000/- each
and shall furnish one surety for the
likesum to the satisfaction of the
arresting authority.
ii. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 shall not tamper
with any of the prosecution witnesses,
directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 have to make
themselves available before the
Investigating Officer for interrogation,
as and when called for and to
cooperate with the further
investigation.
iv. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 have to appear
before the concerned Court within 30
days from the date of this order and to
execute the personal bond and the
surety bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BSR
