Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 936 (KAR)

Firasat Khan v. State of Karnataka

2016-12-07

B.A.PATIL

body2016
ORDER : B.A. PATIL, J. 1. Heard. I.A.1/2016 is allowed and the learned counsel for the de facto complainant is permitted to assist the learned High Court Government Pleader. The present petition is filed by the petitioner/accused Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.33/2016 of Woman Police Station, Bidar for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 307 of Indian Penal Code Read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, complainant is the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No.2 is mother-in-law and petitioner No.3 is brother-in-law of the complainant. After the marriage, complainant was residing with petitioner No. 1 and led the marital life. But, thereafter the petitioners started ill-treating and harassing her by demanding dowry and the said fact was also informed to the parents of the complainant. It is the further case of the complainant that two years after the marriage, further the petitioners started demanding the dowry and started ill-treating and harassing her both physically and mentally. It is further alleged that after some time, the complainant became pregnant and on 30.06.2015 the petitioners have driven drew out the complainant from the house and on 13.02.2016, the complainant gave birth to a male child. It is also alleged that on 13.02.2016 in the evening at about 5.00 p.m., when the complainant was admitted to hospital for delivery and after giving birth at 5.20 p.m., the petitioners tried to kill the child. It is further alleged that on 19.10.2016 at about 2.00 p.m., all the petitioners entered the house where the complainant was residing and had beaten and abused her in filthy language and tried to murder the child. When the torture and ill-treatment was continued, the complainant filed the present complaint on 22.10.2016. On the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered against the accused persons in Crime No.33/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,506 and 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC and also for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State. 4. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that, because of the family matrimonial disputes, the present complaint has been filed. Even the complainant has filed a case for perpetual injunction under the Protection of Woman form Domestic Violence, Act and the proceedings are pending before the trial Court. Even she has been granted interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act. Now with an intention to harass the petitioners, the present complaint has been filed. It is further contended that the petitioners are respectable members of the society and there are no basis to the alleged complaint and even the complainant and her son have not sustained any injuries. A false complaint has been lodged by the complainant. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer the surety. On these grounds, she prays for allowing the said petition. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued contending that the material clearly discloses that the petitioners have very seriously gave mental as well as physical torture to the complainant. He also submitted that if at this juncture, if the petitioners are released on bail, they may continue the ill-treatment and harassment and there will be a threat to the life of complainant. As such, they are not entitled to be released on bail. On these grounds, he prays for rejection of the bail petition. 6. I have gone through the contents of the FIR, complaint and other material produced along with the petition. 7. As could be seen from the contents of the complaint it appears that, the main allegation is, because of demand of dowry, the petitioners used to ill treat and harass the complainant and her son. Even it is alleged in the complaint that the petitioners/accused have tried to murder her son by their ill-treatment and cruel acts. But when this Court has directed the learned High Court Government Pleader to produce the material, if any, with regard to the injuries to know that injuries have been sustained by the complainant and her son due to the assault, he expressed his inability to produce any material before this Court. But when this Court has directed the learned High Court Government Pleader to produce the material, if any, with regard to the injuries to know that injuries have been sustained by the complainant and her son due to the assault, he expressed his inability to produce any material before this Court. Even the material produced before this Court, indicates that the family litigation's are pending before the Courts for partition and for claiming the rights under the Domestic Violence Act. In that light and when there are no materials produced before this Court to show that the complainant and her son have sustained any injuries, it indicates that they have not sustained any injuries and have not taken any treatment in any hospital. Even to the alleged second incident, there is no material to show that earlier to the present incident when the petitioners are said to have been come to the hospital to kill the child, no complaint has been filed by the complainant. In that light, the apprehension of the petitioners that they are likely to be apprehended and tortured at the hands of police appears to be just and proper. Hence, I feel that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, if by imposing some stringent conditions, it is going to meet the ends of justice and it will also safeguard the submission made by the learned High Court Government Pleader. Hence, petitioners are released on anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions. The above observations made by me are not going to affect any cases pending before the Courts below. It is only used for the purpose of granting the bail in this case. Accordingly, the following order is made: The petition is allowed. The respondent-Police are hereby directed to release the petitioner/accused Nos.1 to 3 on bail, in the event of their arrest, for the above said offences, subject to the following conditions :- I. The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two solvent sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. II. The petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. III. The petitioners shall mark attendance before the concerned police once in fortnight till the charge-sheet is filed. IV. II. The petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. III. The petitioners shall mark attendance before the concerned police once in fortnight till the charge-sheet is filed. IV. The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional Court and execute personal bond, surety bond and furnish surety within thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.