IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5894 OF 2017 Between:
1. Mahaboobi, W/o Late Khaleel Khan, Aged about 62 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o No.11074, 3rd Division, 3rd cross, near ESI Hospital, B.D.Layout, Davanagere – 577 001.
2. Sardar Khan Rajvi, S/o Late Khaleel Khan, Aged about 30 years, R/o No.11074, 3rd Division, 3rd cross, near ESI Hospital, B.D.Layout, Davanagere – 577 001.
(By Sri Ravindra B.Deshpande, Advocate) And The State of Karnataka By Women Police Station, Davanagere – 577 001.
…Petitioners Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru – 560 001. …Respondent (By Sri Chethan Desai, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.80/2017 of Women Police Station, Davanagere which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A), 302 and 304 (B) r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.
This Criminal Petition is coming for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioners apprehend arrest by the respondent-police in their Crime No.80/2017 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 302, 304B r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The allegation is, the 1st accused (son of 1st petitioner and brother of 2nd petitioner) was married to the deceased- Nagma Banu on 21.09.2015. Subsequent to the marriage, the accused tortured the deceased for dowry, she was manhandled to get money from her parents house. On 17.05.2017, the victim contacted her mother over phone, expressed apprehension to her life and sought to take her from matrimonial home and while so talking, mother of the 2nd petitioner abused the victim and punched on her face, due to which, she was screaming. Subsequently, they hanged her and locked the house from outside, etc.
4. Sri Ravindra B Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners at no point of time resided with the 1st accused and with the deceased and they are innocent of the offence.
5. However, what gains importance at this stage is, these petitioners were named in the FIR and they are aware of the registration of the case. Though no specific overt act attributed against both of them, having not co-operated with the investigating officer for investigation, they are not entitled to seek relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Hence, the petition is rejected.
SD/- JUDGE Mkm*