SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri Jameel Pasha vs State Of Karnataka By on 8 January, 2018

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh