Karnataka High Court
Ibrahim S/O Late Abdul Wahid vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 January, 2014
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100027/2014
BETWEEN:
IBRAHIM
S/O LATE ABDUL WAHID
AGE: 23 YEARS,
OCC: LORRY CLEANER,
R/O. BELAGAL ROAD,
GOUTHAM NAGAR, BELLARY. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI J BASAVARAJ, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(THROUGH BELLARY RURAL POLICE
STATION)
R/BY ITS HIGH COURT PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP.)
*****
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL IN
2
CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.167/2013
(S.C.NO.157/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELLARY) REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 304-B, 498-A, 504, 323 R/W 34 OF
IPC AND U/S 3 & 4 OF DP ACT, REGISTERED BY THE
RURAL POLICE STATION, BELLARY, PENDING TRIAL.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl.SPP for the respondent - State. Perused the records.
2. One Parveen, the deceased was the wife of the petitioner and their marriage took place on 10.3.2013. after the marriage she started living with the petitioner and his family members at D.C. Nagar, Bellary. They lived happily ;for about two months. Thereafter, it is alleged that the petitioner and his family members started demanding to bring dowry and demanded a motorcycle from the parents of the deceased. About 10 3 days prior to the incident, the petitioner and his family members thrown her out from matrimonial home. She sheltered herself in the house of her parents in the same town. There was a panchayath. In the panchayath, the accused said to have admitted to take her back. As they did not come to take her, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene in her parental house. On these allegations, the police have registered a case for the offence punishable under Section 304-B, 498-A, 504, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. On perusal of the records, it reveals that during the lifetime of Smt. Parveen, the deceased, she has given dying declaration before the Police, which has been treated as FIR and on which basis, a complaint came to be registered. In the said dying declaration cum First Information Report, it is stated that about ten days prior to the date of incident, she was thrown out 4 from her matrimonial home and there was a compromise between them and the accused have accepted to take her back. As they did not turn up, she committed suicide on 11.6.2013 at about 5.00 pm by pouring kerosene on her body and litting herself with fire. Thereafter, she was shifted to the VIMS Hospital and there she succumbed to the injuries later. The charge sheet has already been filed. The statement of the witnesses also reveal the same factual aspects. However, the second dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate on 12.6.2013 discloses that she committed suicide in the house of her husband which statement is totally contrary to the FIR and the statement of the father, mother and relatives of the deceased. It is amply clear from the records that she committed suicide in her parental house. Though there was a compromise between the parties after she was thrown out from her matrimonial home, the petitioner 5 did not turn up to take her back. So, it is not clear as to what made her to commit suicide, though it is stated that due to ill-treatment and harassment about ten days prior to the date of incident, she committed suicide. But she has expressly stated that her husband has not taken her back to her matrimonial home, she has frustrated and committed suicide. At this stage, the Court can't draw any definite inference whether the demand was made with an intention to driving this lady to commit suicide.
4. In the above said circumstances, all the allegations made has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt during the course of trial. At this stage, in view of the above said discrepancies, and as there was a compromise between the parties and what transpired during the course of panchayath was not known, the Trial Court has to find out whether the accused have committed such an offence or not.
6
5. In the above said circumstances and also considering the fact that the accused has been in Judicial Custody since seven months and the trial may take sufficient time, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail on certain conditions. Hence, the following order:
(1) The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
(2) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses. (3) He shall make himself available to the Sessions Court on all future hearing dates unless prevented by any genuine cause.
(4) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission till the case is disposed off.
(SD/-) JUDGE PL