Allowed

Syed Vihan @ Vinay Gudi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2023CRL.P/7768/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Karnataka order granted bail to a petitioner accused of murder and causing death (S.302/201 IPC). The court found serious doubt regarding the cause of death due to inconclusive forensic evidence, allowing the release subject to standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to be released on bail subject to execution of a personal bond, appearance before trial court, and other standard conditions.

Syed Vihan @ Vinay Gudi Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:36730 CRL.P No. 7768 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7768 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SYED VIHAN @ VINAY GUDI S/O RAVINDRA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO 42, NEW BADAMINAGAR, KESHAVAPURA - 580 023 HUBBALLI DHARWAD DISTRICT

¶10

PRESENTLY R/AT NO 11, MSR GANGOTRI APARTMENT NEAR GOVT SCHOOL KURUDUSONNENAHALLI, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI 560049 BENGALURU EAST TALUK

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SHO, AVALAHALLI P.S., BENGALURU CITY, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

ASHRAF UNNISA W/O SYED MEHABOOB BASHA,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:36730 CRL.P No. 7768 of 2023

¶19

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, HOME MAKER, R/AT NO.11A, 4^TH CROSS, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, ATTURU, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU-560 064

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1; SRI CHANDAN B.K. AND SRI. SHEKAR BADIYA, ADVS. FOR R2)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED ON BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH AVALAHALLI POLICE CRIME NO.490/2022 AND C.C.NO.3585/2023 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AND PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDER/S AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE IN THE ADMITTED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Accused in SC.No.219/2023 pending before VIII

¶26

Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, arising out of Crime No.490/2022 registered by Avalahally Police Station, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 of IPC is before this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:36730 CRL.P No. 7768 of 2023

¶30

On the basis of the complaint dated 13.12.2022 registered by Smt.Ashrafunnaisa wife of Sri Syed Mahamahaboobbasha, Avalahally Police had registered FIR in Crime No.490/2022 against the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. In the complaint, it is averred that the complainant’s sister Arif Unnisa who had completed her M.Sc was working as a lecturer in a college at Mysore in the year 2015. During the said time, she got acquainted with the petitioner herein and they fell in love with each other. Subsequently,

¶31

the family members of complainant had got married Arif Unnisa to the petitioner herein in the year 2016. About 3 years prior to the complaint, Arif Unnisa and petitioner

¶32

had shifted from Mysore to Bangalore and they were residing in a rented premises in Bidarahalli, Bangalore East Taluk. They used to visit the house of complainant’s mother, but for the last 3 to 4 months, the petitioner and

¶33

Arif Unnisa had not visited the house of complainant’s mother. On 13.12.2022 complainant’s mother informed the complainant that Arif Unnisa is dead and the same was

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:36730 CRL.P No. 7768 of 2023

¶36

informed to her by the petitioner herein. When the complainant called the petitioner over phone, he informed her that body of Arif Unnisa was being brought in Ambulance. Thereafter, when the complainant tried to contact the petitioner he had not answered the call. The complainant therefore had gone to his house and found the dead body of Arif Unnisa which was lying in the bed room and blood was oozing from her mouth. When the complainant enquired with the petitioner, he allegedly told her that Arif Unnisa had fallen from the cot and died. However, the complainant suspected that the petitioner had assaulted and strangulated Arif Unnisa and murdered her.

¶37

It is in this background, the police registered the case. During the course of investigation in the said case, petitioner was arrested on 14.12.2022. The investigation in the case was completed and charge sheet has been filed. His bail application filed before VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District,

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:36730 CRL.P No. 7768 of 2023

¶40

Bangalore, in Crl.Misc.No.842/2023 was rejected on 06.05.2023. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. The allegation made in the charge sheet cannot be prima facie believed because the pillow allegedly used for smothering the deceased had no blood stains on it. He submits that even the post mortem report with regard to the cause of death is not definite. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶42

Learned HCGP has opposed the bail petition.

¶43

She submits that the death has taken place in the house of the petitioner and he has not offered proper explanation for the cause of death. The conduct of the petitioner immediately after Arif Unnisa was found dead points out fingers against him and therefore, she prays to dismiss the petition.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:36730 CRL.P No. 7768 of 2023

¶46

As per the charge sheet allegations, on

¶47

13.12.2022 at about 7.30 am., the petitioner and his wife

¶48

Arif Unnisa had fought against each other in his house and the petitioner allegedly smothered Arif Unnisa to death with the help of pillow. The material on record goes to show that the deceased had sustained certain injuries on her face and blood was oozing from her mouth. The allegation against the petitioner is that he used the pillow to smother Arif Unnisa to death. From the FSL report, it is seen that the pillow cover which was forwarded for chemical examination had no blood stains on it. The chemical examination report also states that Ethyl alcohol was found in the body of deceased-Arif Unnisa. The final opinion regarding cause of death of deceased Arif Unnisa was issued by the doctor who had conducted post mortem on 14.12.2022. The definite cause of death has not been

¶49

mentioned by the doctor and on the other hand, it is stated that the possibility of death due to smothering by pressing pillow on face is described in the letter dated 07.03.2023 by the police inspector of Avalahally Police

¶50

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC:36730 CRL.P No. 7768 of 2023

¶52

Station cannot be ruled out. Therefore, serious doubt arises with regard to the cause of death of the deceased Arif Unnisa. The petitioner who has no criminal antecedents is in custody from 14.12.2022 onwards. The investigation of the case is completed and charge sheet is filed.

¶53

Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner’s prayer for grant of regular bail is required to be answered in affirmative. Accordingly, the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

The Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶56

The petitioner is directed to be released on bail in Crime No.490/2022 pending on the file of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, which was registered by Avalahally Police, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, subject to following conditions:

¶57

i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with one surety for the

¶58

¶59

NC: 2023:KHC:36730 CRL.P No. 7768 of 2023

¶60

likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Police Station/jurisdictional court;

¶61

ii. The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly;

¶62

iii. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on all hearing dates unless his appearance is exempted by the said court for valid reasons;

¶63

iv. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission from the said court;

¶64

v. The petitioner shall not involve himself in similar offences in future.

¶65

SD/JUDGE

¶66

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Syed Vihan @ Vinay Gudi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Vihan @ Vinay Gudi 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

Sri Abdul Khader Vs State of Karnataka

Ajith Kumar K @ Ajit Vs the State of Karnataka by

Shanthkumar Vs State by

Sri. B. P. Yatheesha @ Yatheesh Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Buddappa Alis Bhaskar Vs State

Sri. Kiran @ Nalla Vs State of Karnataka by