Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 979 (KAR)

Sheik Syed Ali v. State Of Karnataka

2020-06-05

H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Arguments in this matter were heard through video conference. 2. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.32/2020 of respondent Parappanagrahara Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The summary of the complaint before the respondent Police is that one Sri E.D.M. Sirajudheen who is said to be the father of the deceased Smt.Shifana Beevi has stated in his complaint that his elder daughter Smt.Shifana Beevi was given in marriage to the present petitioner on 25.08.2019 and at the time of marriage, 80 pawans of gold (640 gms. approximately) was demanded by the accused persons. However, during the marriage, 45 pawans of gold was given to the bride and another 5 pawans of gold ornaments was given to the accused No.1 (son-in-law) and spending a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-, marriage was celebrated. 4. However, according to the complaint, his daughter was not taken care of well by the accused in her matrimonial home. The deceased was talking over phone to her parents regularly. His daughter was harassed by her mother-in-law, brother-in-law everyday for silly reasons. His son-in-law i.e. accused No.1 (present petitioner) also started to harass his wife demanding a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to be brought from her parental house for purchasing a property at Chennai City. That being the case, on 29.01.2020, at about 9.45 a.m., wife of the complainant received a phone call from accused No.2 intimating that the deceased has committed suicide by hanging herself at her house. Hearing the same, when the complainant and his family rushed to the place, saw that their daughter had lost her breath. They also noticed a ligature mark on her neck. The said complaint was registered with the respondent Police for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.32/2020. 5. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent State submitted his oral objections. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in her arguments vehemently submitted that the entire complaint is based on a certain suspicion. There is no prima facie material to corroborate the allegation. She further submitted that even a reading of the complaint does not make out a prima facie case against the accused. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in her arguments vehemently submitted that the entire complaint is based on a certain suspicion. There is no prima facie material to corroborate the allegation. She further submitted that even a reading of the complaint does not make out a prima facie case against the accused. Stating that accused Nos.2 and 3 and 4 have already been enlarged on bail and investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has been filed, she prays for allowing the petition though by imposing some conditions reasonable to the mind of the Court. 7. Per contra, learned HCGP in his submissions stated that the alleged offence is heinous, within five months of her marriage, the deceased met with an unnatural death, as such, it is a clear case of dowry death. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer has collected sufficient material to prove the alleged guilt against the accused. In such circumstances, the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 8. A reading of the complaint at this stage and prima facie would go to show that the complainant except stating that the accused were harassing his daughter (the deceased) for silly reasons, has not mentioned any specific instance of the alleged harassment or cruelty said to have been meted to the deceased. Further, the complainant has stated that he has only suspected the alleged acts of the accused in the alleged commission of the guilt. That being the case, whether the accused have committed the alleged offences is a question to be decided through the full-fledged trial. 9. Admittedly, the investigation is said to have been completed and charge-sheet also filed. Even according to the prosecution, accused No.1 is working as a software engineer and securing him for the trial would not be a difficult task. Considering the fact that the remaining all other accused have been enlarged on bail, I am of the view that, imposing reasonable conditions, the present petitioner be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. Considering the fact that the remaining all other accused have been enlarged on bail, I am of the view that, imposing reasonable conditions, the present petitioner be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner who is accused No.1 in Crime No.32/2020 of respondent Parappanagrahara Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is ordered to be enlarged on regular bail subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner 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 enlarging Court. ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing. iii) Petitioner shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses and documents in any manner. iv) Petitioner shall give in writing about the change in his address, if any, to the trial Court as and when such change occurs and obtain acknowledgement in that regard.