Karnataka High Court
Sri Sheeraz Ahmed Shariff vs State Of Karnataka on 25 July, 2022
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5943 OF 2022
BETWEEN
1. SRI. SHEERAZ AHMED SHARIFF
S/O FIAZ AHMED SHARIFF
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.3305, H.N.PURA
SHARIF COLONY
HASSAN- 573201
2. MRS. SUMIYA TARANNUM @ TARANNUM
W/O MOHAMMED RIZWAN ALI
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.99, ROBERTSON ROAD
NEAR G.K VALE, FRAZER TOWN
BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU- 560005
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. N.MANOJ KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
EAST ZONE WOMEN POLICE STATION
REP BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE- 560001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HCGP)
2
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.94/2021
NOW IN C.C. NO.33610/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 506, 504, 323 R/W
34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT PENDING
ON THE FILE OF VIL ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioner No.1-accused No.1 and petitioner No.2- accused No.4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.94/2021 of East Zone Women Police Station registered in C.C No.33610/2021 on the file of 6th ACMM, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 504, 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that petitioner No.1 is the husband of the complainant and their marriage was solemnized on 24.12.2018 as per Muslim rituals. It is alleged that during the marriage 100 3 sovereign gold ornaments and dowry of Rs.10 lakhs was paid and more than Rs.10 lakhs was spent for marriage by her parents. She also asserted that after the marriage she went to Qatar and stayed there with her husband, but there it is alleged that he ill-treated her demanding dowry, and also insisted her to give divorce by throwing her out of the house and as such, she claims that she returned to Bengaluru on 25.10.2010 and petitioner No.1 has also pledged her gold jewels and taken loan of Rs.10 lakhs. Hence, she filed a complaint in this regard.
3. On the basis of complaint the crime was registered and apprehending their arrest the petitioners have filed a bail petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C and the learned LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-72), Bengaluru, rejected anticipatory bail by an order dated 17.03.2022. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court.
4
4. Heard Sri. N. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Krishna Kumar K.K., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent -State.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the present petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 4 and all other accused have been granted regular bail. He would also contend that though there are allegations of arranged marriage, but he would contend that in fact it is a love marriage and both were residing in Doha-Qatar and both were employed there itself. He would also contend that the allegations of the complaint itself would clarify that petitioner No.1 was the sole earning member of the family and his brother is unemployed and as such, the complainant did not want to use the salary benefits to any other family members, as a result, she has created a story. He would also contend that the incident alleged to have taken place in Doha-Qatar but after 1½ months she obtained a medical certificate from the concerned hospital and after returning to India, 5 she lodged the complaint which disclose her intention. He further contend that offences alleged are not punishable with death or life imprisonment and further he undertakes to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this Court. He has also produced certain documents to show that lot of financial transactions have been taken place between himself and his wife and he has transferred certain money to his wife on regular basis which falsify the complaint allegations. He would also contend that the investigation is concluded and the charge sheet has been laid down. Hence, he has sought for admitting the petitioners on anticipatory bail.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would oppose the bail petition contending that there is material evidence as against the present petitioners ill- treating and subjecting the complainant for harassment, demanding dowry amount and hence, he would seek for rejection of bail petition on the ground that he was absconding all along during the course of investigation. 6
7. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident from the records that the complainant and petitioner No.1 were all along residing in Doha-Qatar. Further allegations of the complaint disclose that the incident was taken place in Qatar. Medical record produced by petitioner No.1 discloses that the complainant has approached the hospital authorities at a belated stage, that too in Qatar and obtained a wound certificate which only disclose some bruise/contusion on the right hand. However, this document disclose that the alleged incident has taken place 1½ months earlier and complainant has approached the hospital authorities on 22.05.2021 at 01.37 hours. The alleged incident was said to have taken place 1½ months earlier and there is no explanation as to why delay in approaching the hospital authorities. The documents produced by the husband also disclose that he has transferred certain amount to the account of his wife and if at all there was demand for dowry, there is no question of he transferring the amount to the account of the complainant. Apart from that the documents disclose 7 that he did sustained certain injuries and there is no explanation, however, those are to be tested during the course of trial. However, offences alleged are not punishable with death or life imprisonment and are triable by the learned Magistrate. The investigation is concluded and the charge sheet has been laid down. The offence is alleged to have been taken place in Qatar. Further it is also evident that other family members are also residing in foreign countries, but they were implicated in this case and it is also submitted that a D.V Act case is also filed subsequently. Looking to these facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any impediment for admitting the petitioners on anticipatory bail. The other apprehension raised by the learned HCGP can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Hence, bail petition needs to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Petition is allowed.8
The petitioners- accused Nos.1 and 4 are directed to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.94/2021 of East Zone Women Police Station registered in C.C No.33610/2021 on the file of 6th ACMM, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 504, 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Petitioners shall surrender within 15 days from the date of this order before concerned Court.
(ii) In the event of surrender as directed above the Court shall release them on bail as directed.
(iii) Petitioners shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.9
(iv) Petitioners shall regularly attend the trial before the learned Magistrate and co-
operate in the speedy trial unless they are exempted by the Court by specific order.
Sd/-
JUDGE SKS