Allowed

Sulthana Khanum @ Sulthana v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2017CRL.P/5522/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application under CrPC Section 439 filed by a murder accused. The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition, granting enlargement on bail subject to specific conditions, noting she was primarily implicated through her husband's voluntary statement.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail to execute self bond for Rs. 50,000 with one surety for like sum, complying with standard conditions.

Sulthana Khanum @ Sulthana Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5522 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sulthana Khanum @ Sulthana (Accused No.2), Wife of Mujayeed, Aged about 36 years, Residing at Beedi Karmikara Layout, Kengeri Satellite Town, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore – 560 076.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri Harish Kumar M.R. and Shri G.R.Sheshadri, Advocates)

¶11

AND:

¶12

State of Karnataka By Kengeri Police Station, Bangalore District. Pin Code: 560 076. Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka,

Bangalore – 560 001.

…RESPONDENT

(By Shri S. Vishwamurthy, Government Pleader )

¶17

¶18

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.3/2016 (S.C.No.665/2016) of Kengeri Police Station, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶19

This petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶22

learned Government Pleader.

¶23

It is the case of the prosecution that a missing complaint dated 5.1.2016 was lodged to the effect that Nilofer, mother of the complainant was missing from 4.1.2016. A case having been registered, it was only on 23.01.2016 that a dead body was said to have been found in the Byramangala lake and the complainant was called upon to identify whether the dead body was that of his mother. And in fact it was found to be that

¶24

¶25

of his mother. It is thereafter on suspicion that Accused No.1 had been interrogated and it was revealed that Accused Nos.1 and 2, namely the husband and wife lived opposite the house of Nilofer, the deceased and were aware that she had gold and other valuables in her possession and therefore on 4.1.2016, at about 3.00 p.m. when Nilofer visited their house, they had offered her tea and while she was having tea, Accused No.1 is said to have strangulated her with an electric wire and with the assistance of Accused No.2, she was done to death. Thereafter,

¶26

they had transported the dead body in an auto-rickshaw belonging to Accused No.3 and the dead body was dumped in the lake, which was later discovered on 23.01.2016.

¶27

These sequence of events are reconstructed by the police on the voluntary statement said to have been made by Accused No.1 and further that they have also recovered jewellery and valuables on the direction of Accused No.1, which has led the police to the same. It is in this background that all the three accused are in custody. The application by the

¶28

¶29

petitioner seeking bail has been rejected by the court below having regard to the seriousness of the crime and the involvement of the present accused in having aided and abetted the murder of the deceased.

¶30

However, it is to be noticed that it is the voluntary

¶31

statement of Accused No.1 to the effect that he committed the murder of Nilofer, which is the primary allegation. The fact that the petitioner was also present and had aided the commission of murder is a clause that is placed by the prosecution, on the basis of such voluntary statement. The recoveries made are also at the instance of Accused No.1 and not at the instance of this petitioner. She is the mother of three children, which is evidenced by certificates produced along with this petition and therefore, though there is a serious offence which may have to be tried, the petitioner being squarely implicated on the basis of the voluntary statement may not be sustained, unless established at the trial. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a case for enlargement on bail. Hence,

¶32

¶33

the petition is allowed and the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶34

(i) The petitioner shall execute a self bond for a sum of

¶35

Rs.50,000/- with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the court below.

¶36

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or prevail upon the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶37

(iii) The petitioner shall attend the court on all dates of

¶38

hearing and shall co-operate with the Investigating Authority.

¶39

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the

¶40

court below without prior permission.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Sulthana Khanum @ Sulthana v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulthana Khanum @ Sulthana v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri C P Yogeshwara Vs the Income Tax Department

Shri. C.P. Gangadhareshwara Vs the Income Tax Department

Megacity (Bangalore Builders & Developers Vs the Income Tax Department

Sri P Vedamurthy Vs Smt Vanitha

A. Narayana Rao Vs the State

M. Vinutha Vs Narendra Babu