The High Court of Karnataka rejected a bail petition filed by the husband accused of the dowry-related murder of his wife. The court held that the presence of material evidence and lack of a satisfactory explanation by the accused made bail inappropriate.
Bail petition rejected; petitioner to remain in judicial custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8679/2022
BETWEEN:
IMTHIYAZ ALIYAS BABU S/O IQBAL KHAN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT SAVAKANAHALLI GATE C/O GOVINDARAJU SAVAKANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-571 105
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. PRAMILA NESARGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ROSHAN M.C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VISHWANATHAPURA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.37/2022 (C.C.NO.8570/2022) REGISTERED BY VISHWANATHAPURA POLICE STATION, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
2
489A, 302, 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for enlarging him on bail in Crime No.37/2022 of Vishwanathapura Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
that:
The deceased was given in marriage to the petitioner/accused about nine years back and they had two children out of said wedlock by name Kajal Zehra and Mohammed Rahib. It is also alleged that the petitioner regularly used to pester the deceased and his in-laws demanding additional dowry and subjected her to ill-treatment. Later on the deceased and the present petitioner stayed in a rented house in Savakanahalli village
3
and the complainant has provided all the household articles. It is alleged that on 07.04.2022 morning at 5.45 a.m. the complainant has received a telephonic call from the mobile of his deceased daughter that she is no more and that call was made by the neighbors. Immediately, he went to the house and found that the front door was locked and on verification from the window she was found dead. When they opened the door, it was found that she was murdered. In this regard a complaint came to be lodged.
4
5
6. Per contra, learned HCGP would seriously oppose
the bail and contended that the death has occurred in the house and it is an unnatural death. She would also invite the attention to the postmortem report and further contended that CW.2 is the child who is the eye witness and CW.3 is the neighbor who heard the galata between petitioner and his wife on the night and on the next day morning the petitioner was not found and the door was locked. Hence, he would contend that it is for the petitioner to explain under what circumstances the death has occurred under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. She would also contend that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of tampering the prosecution witnesses and jumping the bail. Hence she would seek for rejection of bail petition.
records, it is the evident that the deceased was the wife of the present petitioner and their marriage was solemnized about nine years back. It is also evident that they had two
6
children. The allegation of the prosecution disclose that all along there was demand for dowry and the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment. It is further evident that the complainant has paid certain amount as per demand of the present petitioner and the deceased along with her husband was residing in the rented house along with their kids. The records further disclose that the deceased was found dead on 07.04.2022 in the morning when the matter was reported by the neighbors.
is due to asphyxia consequent upon the compression of the neck. No doubt there is reference in the postmortem report
that the rigor-mortis was spread all over the body. But the allegation of the prosecution discloses that the death has been caused around 11. p.m. on 06.04.2022 and the postmortem was conducted on 07.04.2022 at 3.p.m. Hence, the presence of the rigor-mortis covering the entire body cannot be termed as a suspicious circumstance. Further the
7
external injuries disclose that she was having bruise injuries over front and side of the neck.
the neighbor discloses that on night 06.04.2022 there was galata between the husband and wife in their house and they were quarrelling till late night. On the next day morning the house was found locked from outside and when they saw through window, the complainant’s daughter was lying on bed and for their call there was no response. Hence the incident came to light. It is also evident that it is only deceased and the present petitioner who were residing in the said house and it is for the petitioner to explain as to
under what circumstances his wife died. Admittedly, the postmortem report discloses that the death is a homicidal death and the petitioner is not prepared to explain the fact within his knowledge as per Section 105 and 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. Merely because the statement of another child is not recorded and one child witness stated that on the same night she was left in her grand-parent
8
house and she failed to disclose the aspects is not a ground to discard the entire allegation of the prosecution.
Sd/- JUDGE
PKN
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in a case involving delay in reporting death and suspicious circumstances surrounding the deceased wife's death.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Imthiyaz Aliyas Babu
State of Karnataka
Rajendra Badamikar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
