Allowed

Sri Showkath Ali v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2022CRL.A/297/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14-A SC/ST (POA) Act for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a dowry/SC/ST POA case. Court set aside Sessions Judge order, dismissed complaint regarding Section 302 deletion, and granted bail to appellant with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant enlarged on bail subject to personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties and other conditions.

Sri Showkath Ali Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 297 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI. SHOWKATH ALI S/O CHAMAN SAB AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS DEVARAHATTI VILLAGE

¶9

DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT-577004.

¶10

…. APPELLANT

¶11

[BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE]

¶12

AND

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DAVANAGERE RURAL POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

GUNDI BAI W/O. POOJARI KAALANAIKA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS DODDAOBBAJJIHALLI THAANDA DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT-577004.

¶15

….RESPONDENTS

¶16

[BY SRI. R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED]

¶17

¶18

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-A OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL AND SET ASIDE S.C.NO.114/2021 (DAVANAGERE RURAL P.S., CRI.NO.146/2021) ON THE FILE OF II-ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 304-B AND 302 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v-a) AND 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST(POA) ACT, 1989.

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is preferred by accused No.1 in Cr.No.146/2021 of Davanagere Police Station, to set aside the order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Davanagere in S.C.No.114/2021, whereby his petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C has been dismissed.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for appellant, the learned HCGP for respondent – State and perused the material on record. Inspite of service of notice on CW.7, namely brother of the victim, there is no representation.

¶24

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that accused Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife. Their marriage

¶25

¶26

was performed about six years prior to the incident in question. They have two children in their wedlock. Before his marriage with accused No.2, accused No.1 was in love with the deceased – Savitha and after three years of his marriage, he married the deceased and it was a inter-caste marriage. Subsequent to the marriage, accused No.1 had forced the deceased to change her name as Shaeeda Banu. The deceased was staying in the same house with the accused Nos.1 and 2 and their children. Accused persons started illtreating and abusing the deceased insulting her caste and started giving mental and physical torture telling her not to follow the practice of her religion. She was being neglected and even when she was suffering from ill-health she was not taken to hospital for treatment. Unable to tolerate the physical and mental torture meted to the deceased, she committed suicide by hanging in the house of accused on 07.06.2021 between 10 to 11.15 a.m.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the further statement of the complainant recorded on 10.06.2021 wherein, she has stated that the marriage of her daughter – Savitha with accused

¶28

¶29

No.1 was a love marriage and they had objected for the marriage and since it was a love marriage, they have not given any dowry and even after the marriage no dowry in the form of gold or cash was given and at no point of time accused persons assaulted the deceased.

¶30

The learned counsel contends that in the complaint it is alleged that it was a case of murder. However, while filing charge sheet, offence under Section 302 has been deleted. He contends that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Section 304-B or 306 are not made out and even the offence under the provision of SC/ST (POA) Act are not made out. He contends that the allegations against accused No.1 and 2 are one and the same and accused No.2 is already enlarged on bail. The appellant is having two minor children. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. He has further contended that the reasons assigned by the Sessions Court to reject the bail petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C is not in accordance with law. The learned Sessions Judge proceeded on the basis that it is a case of homicidal death

¶31

¶32

and not taken into consideration the further statements of the first informant. Therefore, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶33

Learned HCGP on the other hand contends that the deceased has committed suicide in the house of the accused. Therefore, the reason for her to commit suicide is within the special knowledge of the accused, which he has to satisfactorily explain. He contends that during the course of investigation, the statement of witnesses are recorded wherein, they have clearly stated that the accused was illtreating the deceased both physically and mentally. He contends that the learned Sessions Judge has considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and assigning reasons has rightly rejected the bail petition. Therefore, seeking to dismiss the appeal.

¶34

FIR is registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the mother of the deceased against accused Nos.1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 304B 498A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. It is alleged by the complainant

¶35

¶36

that her daughter married accused No.1 about one and half year prior to the date of incident and it was a inter-caste marriage. Prior to the said marriage accused No.1 had married accused No.2 and they have two children. The accused were abusing her daughter and forcing her to convert to Islam and also torturing her to bring cash from her parental home etc. It is alleged in the FIR that accused persons committed murder of her daughter. However, in the further statement recorded on 10.06.2021 she has stated that since it was a love marriage they did not give any cash or gold at the time of marriage and even after the marriage the appellant has not demanded dowry and he has not tortured the deceased in connection with dowry.

¶37

According to the charge sheet material, both the accused as well as the deceased were living under one roof. The accused were harassing the deceased both physically and mentally for petty reasons and also abusing her in filthy language insulting her caste and also they were forcing her not to follow the practice of her religion. Further, appellant herein neglected her without taking her to the hospital when she was unwell. Whether the appellant has intentionally

¶38

¶39

aided or abetted the deceased to commit suicide is a matter which has to be established in a full fledged trial. In her further statement, the complainant has specifically stated that at the time of marriage no cash or gold was given as dowry and even after the marriage the appellant has not demanded the same.

¶40

The learned Sessions Judge at para 8 of the order

¶41

has observed that the prosecution has made out a prima facie case that the deceased died a homicidal death due to hanging and further observed that in the complaint it is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed murder of the deceased and they have hanged the dead body of the deceased, to show that she has committed suicide. The said observation is not proper since the case of the prosecution itself is that deceased committed suicide and therefore, while filing charge sheet Section 302 was deleted and Section 306 was added. The allegations against the accused have to be proved by the prosecution in a full-fledged trial. Accused No.2 is already enlarged on bail. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. The accused is in judicial custody from 07.06.2021. He is not required for further investigation.

¶42

¶43

In that view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

Criminal appeal is allowed.

¶46

The impugned order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in S.C.No.114/2021 is set aside. Consequently, application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed. The appellant/accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail in S.C.No.114/2021 pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davangare, (Crime No.146/2021) of Davangere Rural Police Station, subject to following conditions;

¶47

i. The appellant/accused shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶48

¶49

ii. He shall furnish his address proof and shall inform the Court/IO if there is change in address.

¶50

iii. He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶51

iv. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the learned Sessions Judge.

¶52

v. He shall not involve in criminal activities.

¶53

vi. He shall appear before the trial Court on all dates of hearing, unless exempted for any genuine reason.

¶54

The observations made herein above shall not influence

¶55

the trial of the case in any manner.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

RJ/HB

Sri Showkath Ali v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Showkath Ali 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

Varun a Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Anjinamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Thimappa Poojary Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Prashanth S D Vs State of Karnataka

S. Kumar S/O Srikantaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs T M Sunitha Vs the State of Karnataka