Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Mohammed Azam on 11 March, 2022
Author: V. Srishananda
Bench: V. Srishananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.750/2022
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE
WOMEN POLICE STATION,
CHIKKAMAGALURU.
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S.VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP)
AND:
1. MOHAMMED AZAM,
S/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
MARKET ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.
2. MOHAMMED GHOUSE,
S/O LATE SHEIK AMEER JAN,
2
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
MARKET ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.
3. SMT. SHANAZ,
W/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
MARKET ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.
4. SHEIR ALI,
S/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/O PEENYA II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. SHEIK ALI,
S/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O PEENYA II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
6. SMT. FAMIDA,
W/O MAHABOOB KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O PEENYA II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
7. SMT. SHATAJ,
W/O RIZWAN PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
BADRIYA CIRCLE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.
3
8. AMEER JAN,
S/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
MARKET ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.
9. SMT. SHAFIYA,
W/O AMEER JAN,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
MARKET ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.
10. NAZNEEN,
D/O LATE NOUSAD,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O MARKET ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.
11. SMT. NASIMA BANU,
W/O LATE NOUSHAD,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O GANDHINAGARA,
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.
12. MAQBOOL,
S/O ABDUL SALAM,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
MARKET ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.
13. FAROOQ,
S/O ABDUL SALAM,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
4
MARKET ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.
14. MUZAMIL,
S/O LATE NOUSAD,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
GANDHINAGARA,
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 TO RESPONDENT NO.14 ARE SERVED
AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 439 (2) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE
AND CANCEL THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2021 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.MISC.NO.456/2021 IN
THEREBY GRANTING BAIL TO THE
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 438 OF CRPC IN
CONNECTION WITH CR.NO.58/2021 OF WOMEN P.S.,
CHIKKAMAGALURU REGISTERED AGAINST THEM FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 498A, 323, 324, 307, 506, 109
R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.3, 4 OF D.P ACT AND SEC.4 OF
MUSLIM WOMEN (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS ON MARRIAGE)
ACT, 2019.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
5
ORDER
Heard Sri. S. Vishwamurthy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner - State. Respondent Nos.1 to 14 are though served remained absent.
2. This petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:
"Wherefore, the Petitioner/State humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to:-
i. SET ASIDE and CANCEL the orer dated 15.07.2021 passed by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru in Crl.Misc. 456/2021 thereby granting bail to the Respondents/Accused persons under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.58/2021 of Women Police Station, Chikkamagaluru registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 498-A, 323, 324, 307, 506, 109 R/w Section 149 of IPC, under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019;
ii. DIRECT the Accused/Respondents be arrested and committed to custody;
iii. GRANT such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit considering the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of jsutice."
6
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:
Upon a complaint lodged by Sumaiya Tarannum, Women police Chickmagalur registered a case against the respondents herein for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 498A, 323, 324, 307, 506, 109 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short), Sections 3 and
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'DP Act' for short) and Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
4. The respondents approached the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru for grant of anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc. No. 456/2021.
5. Learned District Judge after hearing the prosecution, allowed the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. with the following conditions: 7
"1. The petitioners shall surrender before the jurisdictional police station within 15 days from the date of this order.
2. The petitioners shall appear before the investigation officer as and when he/she is directed to do so.
3. The petitioners shall fully co-operate with the investigation.
4. The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not prevail over the prosecution witness."
6. The complaint averments specifically reveals that the marriage of the complainant took place with the respondent No.1 on 21.12.2003 in Azam Shadi Mahal, Chikkamagaluru. At the time of marriage, 150 grams of gold, Rs.45,000/- cash and also household articles worth Rs.15 lakhs were given. Soon after the marriage, within a month, there was a death in the family. Taking into account the said aspect of the matter, the respondent Nos.1 to 14, started abusing the complainant stating that her marriage has resulted in death as she is not having good virtues. The harassment continued and thereafter there was a panchayath convened. During the 8 panchayath, another Rs.50,000/- was paid by the parents of the complainant. Thereafter again, the respondents started abusing the complainant stating that she is ill-fated lady and she is not able to conceive.
7. In 2013, her husband had a surgery wherein one kidney of her husband was removed. The respondents blamed the complainant for the same. Again in 2017, she had undergone a surgery and got removed overian sist. In 2019, January 2019 one day at about 8 a.m., her husband, parents in law and others assaulted her and demanded Rs.25 lakhs as the additional dowry and assaulted her with a plastic chair. They also told that if the said demand is not made, she would be divorced.
8. Based on the said complaint, the police registered a case as referred to above.
9. Learned District Judge has taken note of all the factual aspects and used his discretion and granted anticipatory bail to respondent Nos.1 to 14. 9
10. Learned High Court Government Pleader reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that there are serious allegations levelled against the respondent Nos.1 to 14 and the learned District Judge ought not to have granted anticipatory bail to the respondent Nos.1 to 14. He further argued that the custodial interrogation was very much necessary in order to unearth the truth in the incident and therefore, sought for cancellation of the said bail.
11. Respondents though served with the notice have remained absent. Therefore, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously.
12. As could be seen from the complaint averments, it reveals that the marriage has taken place in the year 2003 and there are series of allegations made right from 2003 up to 2019 and finally, on May 15th of 2021. The allegations made in the complaint clearly shows that the complainant received certain discomforts in the house. No attempt is made on behalf of the complainant 10 to lodge the complaint earlier against the alleged harassment. Except for a panchayath, that was coming in the year 2003, no other positive materials are found on record at least at this stage.
13. It is settled principles of law that at the time of rejection of the bail, the yardstick to be applied by the Court is that whether granting of the bail has prejudiced the Investigation Agency or the complainant?
14. In the case on hand, there is no complaint that the respondent Nos.1 to 14 have violated the conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge while granting the anticipatory bail. Only on the ground that Section 307 of IPC has been invoked by the Investigation Agency, this Court cannot resort to cancel the bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge by resorting to the discretionary powers vested with this Court.
15. Further, from the grounds in the petition, this Court is unable to comprehend that there is an improper 11 exercise of discretionary power in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 14. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that no grounds are made out much less good grounds to cancel the bail granted by the learned District Judge in Crl. Misc. No.456/2021.
16. Accordingly, pass the following:
ORDER The Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE VBS