IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.933/2017 BETWEEN SAGEER AHAMED @ SHEERU S/o LATE MOHAMMED YOSUF AGED 27 YEARS, R/AT J M ROAD MUDIGERE TOWN, MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKAMANGALURU DISTRICT – 577 101.
(By Sri S RAVICHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HEBBAL POLICE BENGALURU REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BENGALURU – 560 001.
(By Sri B J ESHWARAPPA, 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.191/2016 OF HEBBAL POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY AND C.C.No.27070/2016, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 201 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-Police.
2. A case came to be registered in Cr.No.191/2016 of Hebbal Police, Bengaluru City, against the petitioner- accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of IPC.
3. One Kiran Kumar lodged a complaint on 18.08.2016 with the respondent-Police stating that 10 years back he married Fauziyatarnum and the marriage was preceded by mutual love. He has a daughter by name Sania. On 18.08.2016, at 8.30 a.m. his wife sent Sania to school. At 7.00 p.m. his wife’s sister’s son Abraz informed him over phone that Fauziyatarnum was dead. On hearing the information, he rushed to his home at No.206, II floor, 5A cross, Shamanna buildings, Kanakanagar, Hebbbal, Bengaluru and saw the dead body of his wife. He wanted to know the reason behind the death of his wife and informed the police and a case came to be registered in UDR 38/2016 under Section 174(C) of Cr.P.C. The dead body was sent to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar College for autopsy. During inquest mahazar, nail marks over different parts of the dead body were seen. The neighbours stated that Sageer Ahmed @ Sheeru was visiting the house of Fauziyatarnum now and then and on 18.08.2016 as usual he did come on a Honda Activa bearing No.KA 04 HT 7584. In the evening, he locked the house of Fauziyatarnum and went away in his vehicle by riding the same in a rash manner and was not seen thereafter. On the basis of this, complainant entertained a doubt. Subsequent to autopsy, the cause of death was revealed as “due to asphyxia as a result of combined effect of throttling and homicidal smothering” and that a case registered against the said Sageer Ahmed @ Sheeru for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. The said accused is petitioner in this case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submits that the incident is reported to have happened on 18.8.2016 whereas, FIR came to be registered on 06.09.2016 at 6.00 p.m. He further submits that except that the petitioner is a distant relative of Fauziyatarnum, no further incriminating circumstance was forthcoming. He further submits that the petitioner has no role in the death of the lady.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the act of Sageer Ahmed murdering Fauziyatarnum on the date stated above happened in her house. He also submits that the neighbours have seen the petitioner entering the house of Fauziyatarnum before the incident and thereafter coming out and locking the house from outside.
6. It is to be seen that though FIR came to be registered on 06.09.2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. It has to be read in the background of UDR No.38/2016 under Section 174(C) of Cr.P.C. Unnatural death of a person inside the house that was locked from outside requires several circumstances to examine, more particularly, at this stage, the statements of the neighbours cannot be totally brushed aside in toto. The neighbours who have been examined have also gone on record that after locking the house, the petitioner was seen rashly riding his two wheeler. Thus, the present case hovers around circumstantial evidence that stands on the true version of the neighbours, more particularly, when there is no eyewitness. Nodoubt there are no eyewitnesses to the case. But, any attempt to release the petitioner- accused on bail at this stage may prove to be a hasty one. The prosecution also claims that the petitioner has caused disappearance of evidence. Completion of investigation when the petitioner was in judicial custody can never be a sole determining criteria regarding the relief of bail in the context of circumstances. Thus, at this stage, the petitioner cannot be released on bail. However, he may be given an opportunity to move a bail application after CW.1 is examined in full.
The Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE mv