SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Zeenath vs The State Of Karnataka By on 10 December, 2018








W/o Abdul Lathief,
Aged about 36 years,
Occ: Household work,
R/o Fathima Manzil,
Dr.B.K.Nambiyar Road,
Kasaragod, Kerala State-671 121.

Now R/at Naya Bazar, Uppal,
Kasaragod, Kerala State-671 322. … Petitioner

(By Sri. Ravindra B Deshpande, Advocate)


The State of Karnataka by
Sullia Police Station, Sullia Circle,
Dakshina Kannada District-574 239.

Represented by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Buildings,
Bengaluru-560 001. … Respondent

(By Sri. H.S.Chandramouli, SPP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in event of his
arrest in Cr.No.96/2018 of Sullia Police Station, Dakshina
Kannada for the offences P/U/S 498(A) and 302 of IPC.

This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court made the following;


This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C to

enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the

respondent-Police in Crime No.96/2018 at Sullia Police

Station, Dakshina Kannada District for the offences punishable

under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioner-Accused No.2 and learned Special Public Prosecutor.

Perused the records.

3. The present case is filed on the basis of complaint

filed by the father of the victim-Ayisha Banu, the police have

registered the case in Crime No.96/2018. The allegations are

that accused No.1-Shek Phiroj married the complainant’s

daughter. After returning from Dubai, accused No.1 started

harassing his wife namely, Ayisha Banu the complainant’s

daughter at the instigation of his sister-Zeenath, who is

petitioner-accused No.2. On 15.08.2018, evening at about

5:44 p.m., the complainant received the information that

victim-Ayisha Banu had committed suicide.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner namely accused No.2 is residing at Kasaragod

along with her husband and children. She has never

instigated her brother to cause harassment to his wife- Ayisha

Banu. The petitioner is falsely implicated in this case even

though she is not at all responsible for her death.

5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that

there are clear allegations in the complaint that at the

instigation of the petitioner/accused No.2, her brother namely

accused No.1 was harassing his wife, which permitted the

victim to commit suicide. As such, there is no valid grounds to

grant anticipatory bail.


6. During the course of the arguments, learned

counsel for the petitioner has placed the charge sheet copy

wherein, it is shown that the petitioner namely accused No.2

is residing at Kasaragod. Even in the petition, the address is

shown as Naya Bazar, Uppal, Kasaragod, Kerala. At this

stage, no records are forthcoming to show that the petitioner-

accused No.2 was residing with her brother at Sullia. At this

stage, it is needless to make elaborate discussions about the

prosecution records.

7. The submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the records go to show the apprehension of the

petitioner/accused No.2 regarding the arrest and detention.

The petitioner is a lady having small children. The objections

of the learned SPP is that in the event of grant of bail, the

petitioner may abscond. The said objections may be set-right

by imposing stringent conditions and the petitioner is

undertaken to abide by any conditions that may be imposed

by this Court. No grounds are made out to show that the

custodial interrogation of the petitioner/accused No.2 is

necessary. Considering the nature of allegations and the facts

and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the bail

petition deserves to be allowed subject to certain terms and


i) Petitioner shall appear before the Court below

within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified

copy of this order.

ii) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for sum of

Rs.50,000/- and furnish one surety for the likesum

to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation