Allowed

Shamal Das, v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC10 Apr 2023CRL.P/503/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by an accused charged with abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC. The court held that judicial custody was no longer warranted and granted bail on personal bond with stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties subject to conditions of regular attendance and no tampering with witnesses.

Shamal Das, Vs the State of Karnataka by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 503 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 503 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHAMAL DAS, S/O. KOBINDRO DAS, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NO.59, I MAIN, I CROSS, MOTAPPA LAYOUT, NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU PIN-560 048.

¶9

NATIVE ADDRESS CHANDANPUR VILLAGE, TAMALPUR P.S., KUMRIGHATA POST, KAVLI DISTRICT, ASSAM STATE, PIN – 781 360.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by YASHODA KRISHNAPPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. RAJAKUMAR H.K., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAHADEVAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU.

¶15

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)

¶18

¶19

CRL.P No. 503 of 2023

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REQUESTING BAIL IN CR.NO.311/2022 OF RESPONDENT - MAHADEVAPURA P.S., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.306 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF 29th ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAYO HALL, BENGALURU.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard Sri Rajakumar H.K., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinayaka V.S., learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

¶24

This petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶25

“Wherefore, the above-named petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail in Cr. No. 311/2022 of Respondent – Mahadevapura police for the offence punishable u/s. 306 of IPC, pending on the file of 29^th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall at Bengaluru, in the interest of justice.”

¶26

¶27

CRL.P No. 503 of 2023

¶28

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶29

Mamataz Khatun, W/o Abdul Gaphur Ali lodged a

¶30

complaint with Mahadevapura Police on 27.10.2022 which was registered in Crime No.311/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

¶31

The gist of the complaint averments reveal that sister of the complainant by name Tazina Khatun was married to Imtiyaz Ansari about four years earlier and they have a son aged about two years. It is alleged that

¶32

the husband of Tazina Khatun used to pick up quarrel under the influence of liquor every day and unable to bear with the said harassment, Tazina Khatun left the company of her husband and was living with the complainant along with her son. The husband of Tazina Khatun did not care to see what happened to Tazina. As such, a separate alliance was looked for her. She agreed for the same. When the matter stood thus, on 07.10.2022 without informing anybody, Tazina left the company of the complainant. On 08.10.2022, it is noticed that brother of

¶33

¶34

CRL.P No. 503 of 2023

¶35

the complainant by name Mafekul Khandakar was also not

¶36

found in the house and he was also not traceable. On 09.10.2022 Tazina contacted the complainant and told that herself and Mafekul Khandakar have left to Bengaluru in search of a job. After so reaching Bengaluru, Tazina informed that she has developed a love affair with the petitioner and they are living in a house situated near Ganesha Temple, Motappa Layout, I Main, I Cross. In order to find out whether she is leading a happy life in Bengaluru, a ticket was also booked for the journey on 25.10.2022.

¶37

The complainant boarded the train along with

¶38

her relative and on 26.10.2022 at about 9.00 a.m. when she was about to reach, she received the information from Mafekul Khandakar that Tazina committed suicide at about 8.15 a.m. On further enquiry with Mafekul, complainant was informed that there used to be frequent quarrel between Tazina and Shamal Das (petitioner). It is also informed that Shamal Das had relationship with several

¶39

¶40

CRL.P No. 503 of 2023

¶41

other ladies which was made known to Tazina and in that

¶42

regard, there was a quarrel and based on the same, there was a harassment resulting in Tazina committing suicide.

¶43

After so registering the case, police arrested the petitioner and sent him to judicial custody and conducted a detailed investigation and after thorough investigation filed the charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

¶44

Attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an order of grant of bail is turned down by the learned LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, in Crl.Misc.No.11872/2022 by order dated 17.12.2022. Thereafter, petitioner is before this Court.

¶45

Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, Sri Rajakumar H.K., learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is in no way responsible for the alleged suicidal death of Tazina and he

¶46

¶47

CRL.P No. 503 of 2023

¶48

has been falsely implicated in the case and sought for grant of bail.

¶49

He also pointed out that the charge sheet having

¶50

now been filed, continuation of the accused-petitioner in judicial custody is no longer warranted and sought for grant of bail.

¶51

Per contra, learned HCGP reiterating the contentions urged in the statement of objections, opposed the bail grounds.

¶52

In view of the rival contentions, this Court

¶53

perused the material on records meticulously.

¶54

On such perusal of the material on record, it is

¶55

seen that the deceased was earlier married to one Imtiaz.

¶56

Her marital life was not successful and she had left the company of Imtiaz and came back to the complainant’s house and started living with her.

¶57

¶58

CRL.P No. 503 of 2023

¶59

After some time, the deceased wanted to contract a second marriage and the same was intimated to the complainant. The deceased agreed but without informing anybody, she left the company of the complainant along with Mafekul Khandakar stating that they had gone to Bengaluru in search of a job. Later on, the complainant was informed that the deceased had a love affair with the petitioner and both of them were living in a house bearing No.53, I Cross, I Main, Motappa Layout. In order to see whether the deceased is having a comfortable life at Bengaluru, the complainant left Guwahati on 25.10.2022 in a train along with her relative. On 26.10.2022, Mafekul Khandakar, informed the complainant over mobile telephone that the deceased has committed suicide in her house. On further enquiry, the complainant came to know about the harassment imparted to by the petitioner to the deceased on enquiry by the deceased as to the number of illicit relationships that the petitioner had.

¶60

¶61

CRL.P No. 503 of 2023

¶62

Matter is thoroughly investigated and charge sheet is filed by the Investigating Agency. The petitioner was arrested on 28.10.2022 and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and he has co-operated with the investigation.

¶63

Taking note of the fact that on the day of incident, on account of the quarrel between the deceased and the petitioner, resulting in the suicidal death, and Investigating Agency has already collected necessary material evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the present petitioner in judicial custody is no longer warranted.

¶64

The apprehension expressed by the prosecution can be met with by imposing suitable and stringent conditions.

¶65

Accordingly, this Court passes the following:

¶66

O R D E R

¶67

The Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶68

¶69

CRL.P No. 503 of 2023

¶70

Petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on

¶71

executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge.

¶72

Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶73

Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.

¶74

Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of 'Bangalore District’ without prior permission.

¶75

Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail.

¶76

SD/JUDGE

¶77

JT/-

Shamal Das, v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamal Das, v. the State of Karnataka by

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

Mr Joseph Francis Rensen Vs State of Karnataka

Shivaraju @ Kulla Shiva Vs State of Karnataka

Chiranjeevi Vs State by Rmc Yard Police

Sri. Kariyanaika Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Kiran Kumar Vs State by the Karnataka

Mr Shivamurthy Vs State of Karnataka