Dismissed

The State - through the Circle v. Mr. Firoz Sheik

Karnataka HC22 Jul 2021CRL.P/469/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State filed a criminal petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. to cancel bail granted to an accused charged with murder and cruelty. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that despite the heinous nature of the offence, the prosecution failed to show strong reasons for cancellation as no bail violation occurred and the case had progressed to trial.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition filed by the State for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent was dismissed.

The State - through the Circle Vs Mr. Firoz Sheik — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.469 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

THE STATE - THROUGH THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SULLIA CIRCLE, SULLIA, D.K. DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶11

AND

¶12

MR. FIROZ SHEIK AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O. SHEIK ISMAIL, RESIDING AT NEAR JYOTHI CIRCLE, ZILLA PANCHAYATH, BEHIND P.W.D. OFFICE, SULLIA KASABA VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT.

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI R.B. DESHPANDE, ADV.)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO (a) SET ASIDE/CANCEL THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2019, PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.5071/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU, SITTING AT PUTTUR, D.K., GRANTING BAIL TO THE ACCUSED-RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A AND 302 OF THE IPC AND CANCEL

¶16

¶17

THE SAID ORDER OF BAIL AND (b) DIRECT THE ACCUSED-RESPONDENT TO SURRENDER AND COMMIT HIM CUSTODY.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed by the State under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent–accused in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.5071/2019 in connection with the Crime No.96/2018 (C.C.No.1715/2018) registered by Sullia Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 107 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

¶21

Heard the arguments of learned High Court

¶22

Government Pleader for the petitioner – State and Sri R.B. Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondent – accused.

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that one Abdul

¶24

Rasheed, the father of the deceased filed a complaint to the Police on 16.08.2018 alleging that his daughter Ayisha

¶25

¶26

Banu married to the respondent-accused in the year 2016. Later, he went to Dubai for the purpose of work and at that time, she was residing along with his father for few days and again she was residing in her house. One Zeenath who is the sister of the accused used to harass her mentally and at her instigation, the respondent also used to abuse his daughter in filthy language through phone. Later in the year 2017, he came back to India, settled in Sullia and was doing coolie work. Then the accused-respondent used to harass his daughter at the instigation of Zeenath-accused No.2. Due to which, on 4.5.2015, she came and stayed in the complainant’s house. Thereafter, the deceased went to Udupi on 12.08.2018 to attend relative’s marriage and on the same day, he came to Uppala on 15.08.2018. Thereafter, his son-in-law’s father informed that his daughter is not speaking and asked him to come back. His son-in-law informed that the deceased was found hanging in the house. Thereafter, he came and lodge the complaint stating that the accused has committed murder of his

¶27

¶28

daughter. After registering the case, the Police arrested this petitioner on 17.08.2018 and was remanded to the judicial custody. Investigation is completed and chargesheet has been filed. The respondent has moved a bail petition before the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K.Mangaluru, sitting at Puttur. The bail application came to be allowed on 29.07.2019. Aggrieved with the order of granting bail, the State has preferred this petition for cancellation of bail on 19.11.2019.

¶29

Learned High Court Government Pleader

¶30

seriously contended that the offence is heinous one punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The trial Court ought not to have granted bail to the respondent-accused. The trial Court has not properly assigned the reason for granting bail. The finding is perverse one. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition.

¶31

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent

¶32

– accused objected and contended that after granting of bail for almost two years, there is no violation of conditions

¶33

¶34

and he has faced the trial. Presently two witnesses have been examined, but both the witnesses have turned hostile. Hence, prayed for rejecting the petition.

¶35

Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, admittedly the deceased was found hanging in the house of accused on 15.08.2018. The Post mortem examination report reveals that the death is due to external compression of the neck by a ligature. The findings are consistent with ligature strangulation. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer obtained further opinion of the Doctor and came to the conclusion that it was homicidal hanging. Further it has to be tried by the prosecution in the trial Court after examining of the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination to confirm whether it is homicidal or suicidal hanging. Hanging is not in dispute. However, the accused was in custody for almost eleven months when he was granted bail and subsequently, there is no complaint against the accused for violation of the bail condition. The case was committed

¶36

¶37

and the trial was begun. Two witnesses have been examined and both the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. The order passed by the trial Court is almost two years back. Therefore, I am of the view that at this stage it is necessary to cancel the bail to the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has not made out any strong reason for cancellation of bail. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

Accordingly, criminal petition is dismissed .

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

GBB

The State - through the Circle v. Mr. Firoz Sheik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State - through the Circle v. Mr. Firoz Sheik

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

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mohammed Faraz Vs State of Karnataka

Mani @ Manikanta Vs the State of Karnataka

Santhosh @ Appu Vs the State of Karnataka by

Srinivasa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatesh D @ Onti Kai Venkatesh Vs the State by Siddapura Police Station