IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO.3463/2019 BETWEEN MANSOOR ALI KHAN S/O MUNIRKHAN AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O NO.1934, C/1 1ST CROSS, INDIRANAGARA TIPTUR RURAL, TIPTUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-571 222 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. A. CHANDRASHEKARA, ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF TIPTUR TOWN POLICE STATION, TIPTUR TUMKUR DISTRICT-571 222 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. P. YOGANNA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.172/2018 REGISTERED BY TIPTUR TOWN POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498(A) AND 304(B) READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT.
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 HCGP for the Respondent –State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.1 along with other five accused in Crime No. 172/2018 registered by the respondent-Police registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304(B) r/w. 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act, presently pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur, Tumakuru District.
3. It is noticed from the records that, though initially, the said case was registered against six accused persons, after thorough investigation, a charge sheet has been filed against Accused Nos. 1 to 3. It is an undisputed fact that, all other accused persons are released on bail by the Sessions Court itself. Accused No.1 being the husband of the deceased-victim-Smt. Zenath Bee, he was not released on bail.
4. The brief factual matrix of the case is that, the victim lady Smt. Zenath Bee was given in marriage to the petitioner (A1)-Mansoor Ali Khan and they started living together. It is further alleged that, at the time of marriage some dowry was demanded and the same was given and it is also alleged that, some gold articles were demanded and the same were also given to the accused in pursuance of his marriage with the victim lady, and in spite of that, the petitioner (A1) was demanding further dowry. It is also stated by the witnesses that, Accused No.1 wanted to start a new business and therefore, he made a demand for Rs.15,000/- from the family of the deceased and in that context, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was given to him about three months prior to the incident. It is also stated that, a panchayat was convened, in which the petitioner was advised not to ill-treat and harass the deceased. However, it is alleged that, there was continuous ill- treatment and harassment. In this context, it is alleged that, on 22.11.2018 the victim lady-Zeenath Bee committed suicide in the house of the petitioner (A1) by hanging herself.
5. At present, no material is available on record to show that the petitioner (A1) was very much present in the house on the date and time of the alleged incident. Further, added to that, except stating that about three months prior to the incident, there was a demand for Rs.10,000/- as against the demand of Rs.15,000/-, and there was also a panchayat convened. But, there is no material to show as to what transpired thereafter within three months in the house of the accused.
6. Therefore, in the above circumstances, it is very difficult at this stage to come to the conclusion that, the allegations may attract Section 304(B) of IPC or whether the allegations attract Section 306 has to be dealt with by the trial court on the basis of the full-fledged trial. However, Section 306 IPC is not punishable either with sentence of death or life imprisonment, and the allegations are common against all the accused persons and other co- accused are already released on bail. The statement of the witnesses also shows that, there was a demand for Rs.15,000/- for the purpose of starting a new business by Accused No.1. Whether it can be construed as demand of dowry and there was any ill-treatment or harassment soon before the death of the deceased are the factors that have to be taken into consideration by the trial court at the time of trial.
7. In the wake of the above said factual aspects, I am of the opinion that the petitioner (A1), who has been in judicial custody for more than eight months, is entitled to be enlarged on bail, particularly under Section 439 of Cr.PC.. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner (A1)-Mansoor Ali Khan shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.172/2018 of Tiptur Town Police Station registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) and 304(B) read with 34 of IPC and section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur, Tumakuru District, 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) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till the case registered against him is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE KGR*