Karnataka High Court
Sarfaraza @ Fayaz vs The State Of Karnataka, on 3 March, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF MARCH 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100299/2017
BETWEEN
SARFARAZA @ FAYAZ S/O. AYYAB SAYAD,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: WATERMAN,
R/O: HANAGANDI, TAL: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
... PETITIONER
(By SRI. ANAND.R.KOLLI)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH PSI, TARDAL POLICE
STATION, DIST BAGALKOT.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON REGULAR BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO. 38
OF 2016 REGISTERED BEFORE TERDAL POLICE STATION,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 READ
WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ETC.,
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State. Perused the records.
2. The father-in-law of the petitioner by name Babu S/o. Dastagirbsab Hosur lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 05.05.2016 making allegations that his daughter by name Heena was given in marriage to the petitioner and she started leaving with her husband. (petitioner herein) and along with the family members of the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner and other family members of the petitioner started ill-treating and harassing her, even manhandling her in demand of dowry and as well as gold articles. In this background, it is alleged that on 29.04.2016 the sister of the complainant by name Sharabanu had been to the house of the petitioner in order to bring back the victim to her parental house. On 30.04.2016, the daughter of the complainant 3 came back to his house and there he observed, she has sustained some injuries on her back and also on her chest. On enquiry, she disclosed that on 30.04.2016 at about 6.00PM, when she was doing her household work in the house of the petitioner, at that time the petitioner and his family members started abusing her and assaulted her, particularly this petitioner has assaulted her with his hand on her chest and assaulted on her back with the belt and thereafter she sustained such injuries. Therefore, he took her to the hospital and admitted her on 03.05.2016. On 16.05.2016 she was discharged from the Hospital.
3. The learned High Court Government Pleader furnished the medical certificate, which showed that she sustained contusion, on the chest and Hemoptysis. The Doctor has opined that they are grievous in nature. But, the Doctor has not given any explanation as to how he considered the contusion and Hemoptysis as grievous injuries. Hymoptysis is defined in the Medical term that it is an act of coughing up of blood or blood stained mucus from the bronchi, larynx, trachea or lungs. This can occur 4 with lung cancer, infections such as tuberculosis, bronchitis or pneumonia.
4. As could be seen from the above said definition, at this stage, it cannot be termed as an injury. For what reason the Hemophtysis is occurred, is not explained by the Doctor. Even otherwise a plain reading of the complaint, on 30.04.2016, she came from her husband's house and till 03.05.2016 she was in her father's house, but, she was not admitted to the Hospital for the injury sustained by her. But, on 03.05.2016 she was admitted to the Hospital, it shows that there was no severe injuries sustained by her so as to immediately admitted to the Hospital. At this stage, it is very difficult to draw any inference that the act of the petitioner attracts offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.
5. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has already been arrested on 01.12.2016 and since then he has been in Judicial Custody and perhaps, the Police have already at the fag end of the 5 investigation, the petitioner, in my opinion, is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following order is passed.
ORDER The petition is allowed. Petitioner shall be released on bail in Crime No. 38/2016 registered before Teradal Police Station, Bagalkot district for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC with the following conditions.
(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating Officer or jurisdictional Court as the case may be.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation and tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the investigating Officer, once in a week on every Sunday between 9.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. till the final report filed or for a period of one month, whichever is earlier.6
(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for genuine reasons; and
(v) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till the case registered against his is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE BVV/MNS