IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF JULY 2018
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4241/2018
S/O LATE JAKAULLA SHERIFF,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT SARAGURU VILLAGE,
(BY SRI VEERABHADRA SWAMY H.P., ADV.,)
STATE BY CHAMRAJNAGAR RURAL POLICE,
CHAMRAJNAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
STATE OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.2/2018 OF CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN
POLICE STATION, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 302 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3, 4 OF
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
The petitioner is accused of committing the
murder of his wife. The charge sheet is laid against him
under Sections 302 and 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner is in
custody since 03.01.2018.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing
for the respondent-State.
3. The learned HCGP has not filed any statement
of objections, but has orally opposed the bail petition.
4. The case of the prosecution is that the
petitioner herein married the deceased on 11.02.2012.
Differences having been cropped between them,
petitioner made a separate arrangement for the stay of
the deceased at Mysore along with the child. In the
meanwhile, she initiated a criminal proceedings against
him under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
However, the dispute between the parties came to be
settled and a compromise was arrived and the
proceedings were closed. Thereafter, the deceased and
the petitioner along with the child started residing in a
rented house at Chamarajanagar. On the fateful day on
01.01.2018, it is alleged that the parents of the
deceased were also in the house. After dinner all of
them went to sleep. But on the next day morning, the
petitioner and the child were not seen in the house. The
father of the deceased lodged a complaint before the
respondent-Police. In the course of investigation, the
petitioner was arrested on 03.01.2018 and a pillow used
for smothering the deceased was recovered. Based on
the above evidence, charge sheet is laid against the
5. The prosecution appears to have strongly relied
upon two circumstances namely disappearance of the
petitioner from the matrimonial house on the early
morning on 02.01.2018 and the arrest of the petitioner
three days thereafter. But the complaint is seen to have
lodged only at 2.00 pm on 02.01.2018.
6. Looking into the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, apart from the above two
circumstances, no other material is available in proof of
the offences alleged against the petitioner. Even with
regard to allegations of cruelty and dowry demand,
according to the prosecution, the dispute was
compromised between the parties on 09.12.2017 and
the incident has taken place within 10 or 12 days
thereafter. Therefore, the allegation made against the
petitioner require to be substantiated during the trial.
As the investigation is completed, I do not find it
necessary to extend the custody of the petitioner. The
child of the petitioner who was present at the time of
incident is not cited as a witness. Therefore, there
cannot be any apprehension of the petitioner either
threatening the witnesses or tampering with the
evidence at this stage. Accordingly, the criminal
petition is allowed.
a) Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on
bail on obtaining a bond in a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)
with two sureties for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the trial Court.
b) Petitioner shall appear before the court
as and when required.
c) Petitioner shall not threaten or allure
the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever
d) Petitioner shall not get involved in
similar offences; and
e) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction
of the Trial Court without prior
permission of the Trial Court.