IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.696/2019 BETWEEN:
Mohamed Khaja @ Khaja Mohamed, S/o Alla Bakash, Aged 23 years, No.264, 1st Floor, 16th A Cross, Devarajurs Nagar, Halegudadhahalli, J.J.Nagar, Bangalore – 560 026.
(By Sri.G.Muralidhar, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, By J.J.Nagar Police Station, Bangalore – 560 026.
Represented by SPP, High Court.
(By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP) ...Petitioner …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.217/2018 Jagajeevanram Nagar Police Station for the offences P/U/S 304B, 498A, read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking his release on bail in Crime No.217/2018 of Jagajeevanram Nagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 304B, 498A read with Section 34 of IPC and also Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Gist of the complaint is that the deceased is the younger sister of the complainant. Earlier deceased got married to one-Matheen and thereafter, she took divorce. It is further stated that subsequently, the deceased got married with the petitioner/accused No.1 on 22.07.2018 by giving a cash of Rupees One and half Lakh, gold chain, finger ring, bracelet and other jewels. After the marriage, the deceased used to reside with her husband. The sisters of accused No.1 were also used to reside in the fourth and first floors of the same building. It is further alleged that the parents of the petitioner/accused No.1 went to Haj pilgrimage. At that time, petitioner/accused No.1 along with his sisters, took up quarrel and assaulted the deceased and also sent back to her parental house for brining additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- for paying advance to the separate house. The deceased went to the parental house and stayed for some days. When the complainant’s family members said that they cannot do it for the present and asked the deceased to wait till her father-in-law and mother-in-law return from Haj pilgrimage, the deceased came back to the house of the petitioner/accused No.1. Because of fear of harassment and other things, she committed suicide by hanging in the house of the petitioner/accused No.1. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that already the charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner/accused No.1 is not required for the purpose of further investigation or interrogation. It is further submitted that already accused Nos.2 and 3 have been granted anticipatory bail. On the ground of parity, the petitioner/accused No.1 is also entitled to be released on bail. Further it is submitted that earlier, the deceased got married to one-Matheen and as she was not cordial with her first husband, she got divorce again, she got married with the petitioner/accused No.1. There were no demand of dowry, ill-treatment and harassment caused by the petitioner/accused No.1. It is further submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1 is innocent and he has not scolded or assaulted the deceased. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer surety. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the death of the deceased has taken place within two months from the date of the marriage. It is further submitted that the sisters of petitioner/accused No.1 were also residing in the same building and they started demanding additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- for payment of advance to have a bigger house. She further submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1 along with his sisters, abused and demanded for money of Rs.50,000/- and even they have sent back the deceased to her parental house. When the money was not arranged, because of fear and harassment, the deceased committed suicide by hanging. She further submitted that the neighbors of the house of the petitioner/accused No.1, has clearly stated that prior to the alleged incident, the deceased was in a depressed mood and was weeping. When the same was questioned with her, the deceased disclosed about the ill-treatment and harassment caused on her by the petitioner/accused No.1. It is further submitted that there is a presumption in law that it is a dowry death. The death has taken place in a matrimonial house and no proper explanation has been given by the petitioner/accused No.1. There is prima-facie material to connect the petitioner/accused No.1 to the alleged crime. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and other materials, it indicates that the deceased got married with petitioner/accused No.1 on 22.07.2018 and it is also not in dispute that in the fourth and first floor of the same building, the sisters of the petitioner/accused No.1 were also residing. The contents of the petition and complaint indicates that there was ill-treatment and harassment. Accused No.1 and sisters were also abusing and compelling the deceased to bring Rs.50,000/-. When the amount was not arranged, because of ill-treatment and harassment caused on her by the accused persons, she committed suicide by hanging. When the death has taken place in matrimonial house, accused has to come with the explanation that under what circumstance, the death of the deceased has taken place. It is contended that the deceased got married the petitioner/accused No.1 for the second time. Because she was not cordial with her former husband, she might have married the petitioner/accused No.1 against her will. In order to substantiate the said fact, no material has been produced. The death has taken place in the matrimonial house, as per Section 106 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the accused has to explain under what circumstance, the death has taken place. When the same has not been explained, it can be inferred that the petitioner/accused No.1 is responsible for the alleged act and the death of the deceased. There appears to be prima-facie material as against the petitioner/accused No.1. Hence, I feel that it is not a fit case to release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail. Hence, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE VBS