1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8626/2017
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8379/2017
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8626/2017
BETWEEN:
TABREZ @ THABARESH
S/O ABDUL RAHIM
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/A @ 285, NRN COMPLEX,
YESHWANTHPUR,
BANGALORE 560 022.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADV.)
AND:
STATE BY YESHWANTHPURA POLICE
STATION, BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX BUILDING
BANGALORE – 560001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.377/2017 OF YESHWANTHAPURA
POLICE STATION IN BENGALURU CITY FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 498(A), 304(B) R/W 34 OF IPC.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8379/2017
BETWEEN:
PARVEZ @ PRAVEES
S/O ABDUL RAHIM
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/A @ 285, NRN COMPLEX,
YESHWANTHPUR,
BANGALORE 560 022.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADV.)
AND:
STATE BY YESHWANTHPURA POLICE
STATION, BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX BUILDING
BANGALORE – 560001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
3
BAIL IN CRIME NO. 377/2017 OF YESHWANTHAPURA
POLICE STATION IN BENGALURU CITY FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 498(A), 304(B) R/W 34 OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Since these two petitions are in respect of same
crime and common questions of law and facts are
involved in both these petitions, they have been taken
together in order to avoid repetition of discussion of law
and facts and to dispose of them by this common order
2. Crl.P.8626/2017 is filed by
petitioner/accused No.1, who is the husband of the
deceased and Crl.P.8379/2017 is filed by
petitioner/accused No.3, who is the brother-in-law of
the deceased. Both these petitions are filed by the
petitioners/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
seeking their release on bail of the offences punishable
4
under Sections 498A, 304B read with 34 of IPC,
registered in respondent – police station Crime
No.377/2017.
3. 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.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners during
the course of his arguments has submitted that looking
to the complaint averments there is no prima-facie case
made out as against the petitioners herein about their
involvement in committing the alleged offence. So far as
petitioner/accused No.1, who is the husband of the
deceased, is concerned, in the first part of the complaint
absolutely there are no allegations against him, it is
only at the later part of the complaint, when he alleged
to be returned from Dubai and at the instigation of
5
other accused persons, he too started giving ill-
treatment demanding dowry and insisting the deceased
to bring dowry. He also submitted that looking to the
allegations made in the complaint, there are similar set
of allegations even against other accused persons also.
He has further submitted that accused Nos.2 and 4 are
already granted bail by the order of the learned Sessions
Judge. The major portion of the investigation is already
competed. He also submitted that petitioners were not
absconded, accused No.3 was arrested immediately and
accused No.1 was assaulted, he was admitted to
hospital and he was arrested from the hospital itself.
Hence, submitted that by imposing reasonable
conditions petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader, during the course of his arguments has
submitted that the death has taken place within a
6
period of seven years of marriage, under Section 113(b)
of Evidence Act there is an initial presumption that it is
a dowry death and the burden is on the accused person
to rebut the said presumption. He submitted that there
are allegations in the complaint that petitioners were
insisting the deceased to bring dowry amount and the
deceased used to tell before the complainant and other
family members about the same. He has also submitted
that the incident has taken place in the house of the
petitioners herein, therefore, they have to explain the
circumstances under which the death has taken place.
He has further submitted that according to the other
side, if the deceased committed suicide because of the
reason that husband was going back to Dubai, nothing
prevented any of the petitioners/accused to lodge the
complaint narrating the same thing, which they have
not done in this case. Petitioners were also absconded,
though the incident is on 03.10.2017, accused No.1 was
7
apprehended on 13.10.2017. Hence, he submitted to
reject the petition.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail
petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on
record.
7. Looking to the submission made by the
learned counsel on both sides at the bar, investigation
is still going on and Investigation Officer has to file the
final report before the Court. Therefore, when the
investigation is still going on, at this stage without
making any comments on the merits of the main case,
petitions are disposed of with the liberty to the
petitioners to approach the concerned Court after
completion of investigation and filing of final report in
the matter.
In view of the disposal of the main petitions,
I.A.No.1/2017 filed in Crl.P.8626/2017 does not arise
8
for consideration. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2017 filed in
Crl.P.8626/2017 is also disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BSR