Farhat Aara Shaikh W/O. Sameer Shaikh Vs the State of Karnataka

FARHAT AARA SHAIKH W/O. SAMEER SHAIKH, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER, R/O. BYALI PLOT, 5^TH CROSS, MANTUR ROAD, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020.

¶10

RAHAT BEGUAM TAKIWALE W/O. MOHAMMED YUSUF, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER, R/O. ADIKI CHAWL, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD- 580023.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI GOURI SHANKAR MOT, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by V V N N BADIGER BADIGER Date:2025.03.14 15:21:33 +0530

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA HD CITY WOMEN POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI, R/BY. ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 483 OF BNSS, 2023, SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 3 AND 4 ON BAIL AS ATTACHED IN HD CITY WOMEN POLICE STATION CRIME NO.002/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HUBBALLI, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SECTIONS 80, 85, 115(2), 352 R/W. SEC. 3(5) OF BNS, 2023 AND U/SEC. 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4743 CRL.P No. 101268 of 2025

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

¶24

Heard Sri.Gouri Shankar Mot, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Girija Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent.

¶25

Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C with the following prayer:

¶26

“WHEREFORE, the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 most humbly prays that this Honb’le Court be pleased to ENLARGE the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 on bail as attached in HD City Women Police Station Crime No.002/2025 pending on the file of Hon’ble III Additional City Judge and JMFc, At:Hubballi, for the offences punishable under Section 80, 85, 115(2), 352 r/w Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in the interest of justice.”

¶27

A complaint came to be lodged by Haleema Choudhari with HD City Women Police Station on 20.01.2025 which was registered in Cr.No.2/2025 for the offences punishable under Section, 85, 115(2), 352 r/w

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4743 CRL.P No. 101268 of 2025

¶30

Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under

¶31

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶32

Petitioners are sisters-in-law of the complainant

¶33

and they are married and living separately.

¶34

To substantiate that they are having a separate residents, memo with copy of the Aadhar card is placed on record.

¶35

Sri.Gouri Shankar Mot, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that similarly placed relatives of the complainant have already been granted anticipatory bail by coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.100635/2025 dated 24.02.2025.

¶36

Taking note of the same, Sri.Gouri Shankar Mot, would submit that this Court may grant regular bail to the present petitioners especially when other relatives have already been granted anticipatory bail.

¶37

Per contra, Smt.Girija Hiremath, learned High

¶38

Court Government Pleader would contend that even

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4743 CRL.P No. 101268 of 2025

¶40

though petitioners are residing separately but they are in the same locality and they are directly responsible for the harassment of the complainant by the other accused persons and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶41

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶42

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that petitioners are having separate residence and petitioners are married sisters-in-law of the complainant. Further, there are no specific allegations of overt act insofar as petitioners are concerned and allegations are vague and general in nature.

¶43

Taking note of these aspects of the matter, when similarly placed accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail by coordinate Bench of this Court as referred to supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that present petitioners are also to be enlarged on bail.

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4743 CRL.P No. 101268 of 2025

¶45

Other apprehensions of the prosecution can be

¶46

met with by imposing suitable and stringent conditions.

¶47

Accordingly, the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. Bail Petition is allowed .

¶50

ii. Petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail on taking a bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶51