Allowed

Imran v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Apr 2024CRL.P/1796/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition for anticipatory bail. The petitioners sought bail against arrest in a case involving dowry demand, cruelty, and criminal conspiracy. The court found no impediment to bail and imposed conditions including surrender and personal bonds.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 are directed to be enlarged on bail by executing a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- with one surety each, subject to conditions of surrender, non-tampering, and periodi

Imran Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:14082 CRL.P No. 1796 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1796 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

IMRAN S/O MOHAMMED ZAHEERUDDIN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O KAMANABAVI BADAVANE CHITRADURGA TOWN-577 501

¶9

FAROOQ @ SYED FAROOQU ULLA S/O SYED ZAINULLABDIN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶10

SHAKEELA @ SHAKEELABANU W/O SYED FAROOQ ULLA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by SOWMYA D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

BOTH PETITIONER Nos.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDENT OF KURUBARAHALLI -577532 CHITRADURGA TQ AND DISTRICT

¶13

NAZBUDDIN S/O MOHAMMAD ZAHEERUDDIN AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶14

SHANAZ @ SHAHANAVAZ E W/O NAZBUDDIN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶15

BOTH PETITIONER 4 AND 5 ARE R/O PEERSAB COMPOUND CHELUGUDDA,

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:14082 CRL.P No. 1796 of 2024

CHITRADURGA-577504

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR S C, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA-577501 REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SRI B.LAKSHMANA, HCGP)

¶25

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.123/2023 OF CHITRADURGA WOMEN P.S., CHITRADURGA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 114 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3, 4 OF DP ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT JUDGE, CHITRADURGA.

¶26

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This petition is filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1

¶29

to 5 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.123/2023 of Chitradurga Women Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 114 r/w Section 149 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:14082 CRL.P No. 1796 of 2024

¶31

the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga.

¶32

The allegations of the prosecution disclose that

¶33

the first informant is the wife of accused No.1 and their marriage was performed on 11.06.2023. However, the allegation of the complaint itself discloses that no demand was made during the marriage, but subsequently, after the marriage, the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 started to ill treat the first informant, demanding amount of Rs.15,00,000/- in order to clear his debt and he used to physically and mentally ill treat her under the intoxicated state of mind.

¶34

When this aspect was brought to the notice of other accused persons, they used to advice her to adjust and a panchayat was also held in this regard, wherein she was advised to fulfill the demand. As there is no improvement, the complaint came to be lodged.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:14082 CRL.P No. 1796 of 2024

¶37

On the basis of the complaint, First Information

¶38

Report came to be issued and petitioners apprehending their arrest, have approached the learned Sessions Judge and learned Sessions Judge has rejected their bail petition. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶40

and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. Perused the records.

¶41

The allegation of the prosecution discloses that

¶42

accused No.1 is the husband of the first informant, while accused No.3 is the elder sister and accused No.4 is the elder brother of accused No.1, while accused No.2 is the husband of accused No.3 and accused No.5 is the wife of accused No.4.

¶43

The allegations further discloses that accused

¶44

Nos.2 to 5 are residing separately and the accused No.1 and first informant alone were residing in the matrimonial home.

¶45

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:14082 CRL.P No. 1796 of 2024

¶46

The further allegations disclose that initially during the marriage, there was no demand for dowry, but subsequently, the petitioner No.1 i.e., accused No.1 demanded Rs.15,00,000/- under the guise that he had a debt and no dowry was paid during the marriage.

¶47

The allegations further disclose that when this was brought to the notice of other accused persons, they advised the first informant and a panchayath was also held in this regard. The allegations disclose that there are certain matrimonial disputes between the parties and admittedly, petitioners 2 to 5 are residing separately and they are not directly involved in the family affairs of first informant and accused No.1.

¶48

Apart from that if petitioner No.1/husband is taken to the custody at this juncture, there is likelihood of breakage of family bond permanently. The offences alleged are not punishable with death or life imprisonment and are triable by the learned Magistrate. The petitioners

¶49

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:14082 CRL.P No. 1796 of 2024

¶50

have also undertaken to abide by the terms and conditions

¶51

to be imposed by this Court.

¶52

Looking to these facts and circumstances, I do not find any impediment for admitting the petitioners on bail. The other apprehension raised by the learned High Court Government Pleader can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Hence, the petition is to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

I. The petition is allowed .

¶55

II. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 are directed to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.123/2023 of Chitradurga Women Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 114 r/w Section 149 of IPC, pending on the file of Learned I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga, on each of them executing personal bond for a sum of

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:14082 CRL.P No. 1796 of 2024

¶58

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the concerned trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶59

(i) Petitioners/accused No.1 to 5 shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and in the event of surrender, Investigating Officer/SHO shall release them on bail as directed.

¶60

(ii) They shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses.

¶61

(iii) They shall not indulge in any similar offences.

¶62

(iv) They shall make themselves available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for during course of investigation.

¶63

(v) Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 shall mark their attendance before the Investigating

¶64

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:14082 CRL.P No. 1796 of 2024

¶65

Officer/SHO between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. on first Monday of the every month till the final report is submitted.

¶66

Sd/- JUDGE

¶67

MR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Imran v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran v. the 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 T R Muniraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Prathap B R Vs State by Karnataka by Vijayanagara Police Station

Akheb Aalam @ Shekh Akheeb Aalam Vs State by Mandya Women Police

Mohammed Juber and Juber Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narayanaswamy M Vs State by Karnataka

Sri. Mohammed Faisal, Vs State of Karnataka