IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018
THE HON’ BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7550/2018
W/o Abdul Lathief,
Aged about 36 years,
Occ: Household work,
R/o Fathima Manzil,
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
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.