Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Ghouse Khan vs State Of Karnataka on 3 February, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8259/2013
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED GHOUSE KHAN
@ GHOUSE KHAN
S/O.LATE MUNAWAR KHAN
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.3361, 7TH MAIN
THILAK NAGARA, MANDI MOHALLA
MYSORE CITY - 570 008.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.HASHMATH PASHA, ADV.,)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MANDI POLICE STATION
MYSORE - 570 024.
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.149/2013 OF MANDI P.S., MYSORE
CITY AND S.C.NO.255/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL.
S.J., MYSORE, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A), 304(B),
R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/S 3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This is the petition filed by the petitioner - accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B r/w.Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered by the respondent - police in Crime No.149/2013.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as alleged that deceased - Smt.Mehnaz @ Reshma was married to the petitioner on 03-04-2011 at Mysore and at the time of marriage Rs.60,000/- amount and 25 grams of gold ornaments were given and after the marriage she was living with her husband and mother-in-law. After the marriage she conceived. On 12-09-2011, she developed pain over abdomen and she was admitted in Cheluvamba Hospital and underwent abortion and 3 thereafter she spent sometime in her parent's house. Thereafter, she rejoined the petitioner and living with him and mother-in-law. Again she had conceived. On 11-06-2013, she developed pain in abdomen and immediately informed to her mother and brother, then they came and took her and got admitted in Bibi Ayesha Hospital, Mysore for treatment. Again she underwent D&C procedure of expulsion and after treatment she was discharged on 12-09-2013 and thereafter she was residing in her parent's house. When she was residing in her parent's house on 22-06-2013 she fainted and collapsed and she was taken to St.Joseph Hospital, Mysore and admitted for treatment. But the doctor advised that her condition is critical and she should be taken to major hospital for treatment and discharged. The complainant's brother and her mother brought back the deceased to their house instead of admitting in some major hospital and on that night she died. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered. 4
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - accused No.1 and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
4. Perusing the averments in the complaint, the allegation is that the petitioner, his mother and brother's wife were giving ill-treatment to the deceased stating that the dowry amount she brought is not enough and insisting her to bring more dowry amount and they were not providing food and not giving her proper treatment and medicine.
5. Perusing the medical records produced, they goes to show that when she was admitted in St.Joseph Hospital, the history has provided is consumption of some unknown tablets at 2.30 p.m. at her residence. So this prima-facie goes to show that she consumed some tablets and even the materials goes to show that the petitioner and other family members informed the 5 brother of the deceased immediately, when she complained pain in the stomach. Then the brother of the deceased and mother came to the house of the petitioner and they took the deceased along with them and thereafter they got treatment to the deceased in the hospitals and when she was lastly taken to St.Joseph Hospital, the hospital authorities told that her condition is critical and she is to be taken to major hospitals. But inspite of that, materials goes to show that the mother and brother of the deceased took her to their house instead of taking her to the hospital for the treatment and in the meanwhile the deceased expired when she was in the house of her parents. So considering all these aspects, this Court has already granted bail in favour of accused Nos.2 & 3 and perusing the averments in the complaint same set of allegations are made that the husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law were giving ill-treatment in connection with dowry. So under the similar set of allegations, the other accused persons were granted with bail and that the materials 6 reveal that the death is taken place when she was getting treatment in the parent's house and not in the house of the husband. The investigation of the case is already completed and charge sheet has been filed. The offences alleged are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The apprehension of the prosecution that if released on bail, petitioner may tamper the witnesses and he may abscond. Conditions can be imposed to secure his presence during the course of the trial.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner - accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B r/w.Section 34 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered by the respondent - police in Crime No.149/2013, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a
personal bond for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) 7 with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;
(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE VMB