Allowed

Nawaz Pasha v. State Rep. by

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2024CRL.P/1787/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court allowed bail in a criminal petition filed under Section 439 CrPC for offences of dowry harassment and abetment of suicide. The court found insufficient prima facie evidence to establish compulsion of suicide but imposed bond and conditions to prevent witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by executing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions of not indulging in criminal activities and not tampering with witnesses.

Nawaz Pasha Vs State Rep. by — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:14513 CRL.P No. 1787 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1787 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NAWAZ PASHA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O. AMEER PASHA, BABAYYANAGUDI BEEDI, 1^ST BLOCK, TAVARAKERE, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, TAVARAKERE POST, VTC TAVARAKERE, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 130, KARNATAKA. …PETITIONER

¶8

(BY MISS. R. NITHYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAMAKRISHNA .T.R, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by SOWMYA D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

STATE REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR & THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU RURAL, KARNATAKA-562 162.

¶12

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.37/2024 REGISTERED IN MADNAYAKANAHALLY P.S., BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A AND 306 OF IPC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:14513 CRL.P No. 1787 of 2024

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Madanayakanahally Police Station Cr.No.37/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC.

¶16

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are

¶17

that the deceased is the seventh daughter of the complainant and she was given in marriage to the petitioner about five years back. Out of the said wedlock, they had two children by name Vishak pasha and Hizan. It is also alleged that since the date of marriage, the petitioner has all along subjected the deceased to illtreatment and in 2023 she has lodged a complaint with Hebbal Police in this regard. Then the matter was settled in Masjid and the petitioner was advised in this regard. But however, he did not improve his conduct. It is further alleged that since last four years the deceased, petitioner and children were residing in Chikkagollarahatti in a rented house and the deceased used to call the complainant

¶18

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:14513 CRL.P No. 1787 of 2024

¶19

regularly reporting that the petitioner used to subject her to ill-treatment.

¶20

It is alleged that on 14.01.2024, morning 7 O’ clock she received a phone call from petitioner reporting that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. Then she immediately rushed to the spot and found that the dead body of deceased was placed on the floor. As per the information, at morning 5 O’ clock the petitioner had been to work and by 6.30 a.m., when he returned, he found that the door was locked from inside and when he called his wife there was no response and therefore, with the assistance of the neighbours, he broke open the door and found that his wife committed suicide by hanging to ceiling fan with the help of a vale. In this regard the complainant lodged a complaint and on the basis of the complaint, crime came to be registered. The complainant claims to be the mother of the deceased. The petitioner was arrested and was remanded to custody. Subsequently, the

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:14513 CRL.P No. 1787 of 2024

¶23

Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC.

¶24

The petitioner has approached the learned Sessions Judge seeking regular bail and the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition on the ground that the matter is still at the stage of investigation. Hence, petitioner is before this Court and in the meanwhile, it is also reported that the charge sheet has been laid down.

¶25

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for respondent-State. Perused the records.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated by his mother-in-law as she used to intervene in the family affairs all along. She would also contend that there is history in the family of the deceased of committing suicide, as her father as well as her sister have

¶27

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:14513 CRL.P No. 1787 of 2024

¶28

also committed suicide. She would further assert that the investigation is concluded and charge sheet has been laid down and petitioner is required to take care of his old age parents and he is the only bread earning member. Hence, she would seek for admitting the petitioner on bail by undertaking to abide the terms & conditions to be imposed by this Court.

¶29

Per contra, the learned HCGP would seriously oppose the bail petition contending that there is prima facie sufficient material to show that the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment all along and she was instigated to commit suicide by the act of the petitioner. He would contend that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of he tampering the prosecution witnesses and jumping on bail. Hence, he would seek for rejection of the bail petition.

¶30

Having heard the arguments and perusing the

¶31

records, it is evident that the death has occurred in matrimonial home. Further, it is also evident that the

¶32

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:14513 CRL.P No. 1787 of 2024

¶33

death is not in a natural course as deceased has committed suicide by hanging. In the complaint no specific date of marriage is mentioned, but all along it is simply asserted that marriage was solemnized about five years back. If the marriage was solemnized about five years back and since there are allegations of ill-treatment just prior to the death of the deceased and since the death is in an unnatural way, then the ingredients of offence under Section 304B of IPC are attracted. The Investigating Officer did not bother to verify the date of marriage to ascertain whether Section 304B of IPC is attracted or not and he simply submitted the charge sheet for the offences punishable under sections 498A and 306 of IPC. Even in complaint there is no specific reference as to when exactly the marriage was solemnized. The allegations disclose that the marriage was solemnized about five years back and the first child is of five years age and both cannot go simultaneously.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:14513 CRL.P No. 1787 of 2024

¶36

However, the allegations of the prosecution disclose that the deceased was all along subjected to illtreatment. If the prosecution is able to establish that the marriage was solemnized 7 years prior to her death, then the ingredients of offence under Section 304B are attracted. But at this juncture, no material evidence is forthcoming in this regard. Hence, the only issue is regarding 306 of IPC. Though there are allegations that, due to persistent ill-treatment, the deceased has committed suicide, but to substantiate this aspect no prima facie material evidence is forthcoming. If the petitioner has subjected the deceased to ill-treatment, it is an offence under Section 498A of IPC but it is not punishable with the sentence of death or life imprisonment. However, the prosecution is required to prove that the said ill-treatment was of such a nature which compelled the deceased to commit suicide as she had no other option. But this material evidence is missing at this juncture. The prosecution is required to prove the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC so as to attract the

¶37

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:14513 CRL.P No. 1787 of 2024

¶38

offence under Section 306 of IPC. Except formal assertion at this juncture there is no evidence placed in this regard. Looking to these facts and circumstances, I do not find any impediment for admitting the petitioner on bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Hence, the petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(I) The petition is allowed .

¶41

(II) The petitioner/Accused is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.37/2024 of Madanaakanahally Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A & 306 of IPC, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that:

¶42

(i) He shall not indulge in any of the criminal activities.

¶43

(ii) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶44

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:14513 CRL.P No. 1787 of 2024

¶45

(iii) He shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing, unless he is exempted by a specific order.

¶46

(iv) He shall co-operate for speedy disposal of the matter.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Nawaz Pasha v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nawaz Pasha v. State Rep. 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

Mohammed Juber and Juber Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narayanaswamy M Vs State by Karnataka

Sri. Mohammed Faisal, Vs State of Karnataka

Dhananjaya @ Dharmendra Kumar Vs State by Tiptur Rural Police

Santhosh Kumar H Gooturu Vs State of Karnataka

G Thippesha Vs the State of Karnataka by