Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 765 (KAR)

MOHAMMAD SINAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2022-06-20

H.P.SANDESH

body2022
JUDGMENT : H.P. Sandesh, J. 1. This petition is filed under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No. 24/2022 registered by Bantwala Rural Police Station, D.K., for the offences punishable under Ss. 498A, 313, 323 read with 34 of IPC and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with her husband on 1/8/2021 and thereafter she has joined the matrimonial home. The husband left the country in the month of October 2021 and this petitioner and other accused persons insisted her to get the gold ornaments as additional dowry. That in the month of January 2022, there was marriage of her sisterin-law and the husband came to India on 4/1/2022 and thereafter he returned on 24/1/2022. That on 25/1/2022, she went to her parental house since she was pregnant. They insisted her to keep all the gold ornaments in the house. She had visited the house on 10/3/2022 and one gold ornament was given to repair on 20/1/2022 and mother-in-law called her and informed that the petitioner had brought the same. On 11/3/2022, when she asked the mother-in-law to show the same and insisted her to get all the gold ornaments, which she took, she was subjected to assault with their hands and this petitioner fisted on her abdomen and all of them have closed her mouth and neighbour came and pacified the incident, which resulted in abortion on 20/3/2022 and hence she filed the complaint. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case for the offences under Ss. 498A, 313, 323 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar allegation is made against all the accused persons and other accused persons have already been enlarged on bail except this petitioner. The only allegation against this petitioner is that he fisted on the abdomen of the complainant, which led to abortion. The husband of the complainant is staying at Saudi and this petitioner is ready to cooperate with the Investigating Officer for further investigation. 5. The only allegation against this petitioner is that he fisted on the abdomen of the complainant, which led to abortion. The husband of the complainant is staying at Saudi and this petitioner is ready to cooperate with the Investigating Officer for further investigation. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that this petitioner only fisted on her abdomen of the complainant, which has resulted in miscarriage and the doctor has opined that there is a possibility of miscarriage due to trauma and also possibility of patient undergoing miscarriage due to severe mental stress and hence there are sufficient material against the petitioner. 6. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, specific allegation is made against this petitioner that he had fisted on the abdomen of the complainant, which resulted in miscarriage and he is the brother-in-law of the complainant. The final opinion given by the doctor for miscarriage is due to above mentioned trauma and also possibility of the patient undergoing miscarriage due to severe mental stress. When such opinion is given by the doctor, it is appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail with conditions to cooperate with the Investigating Officer for further investigation in the matter. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER: The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 24/2022 registered by Bantwala Rural Police Station, D.K., for the offences punishable under Ss. 498A, 313, 323 read with 34 of IPC and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for. (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge-sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier. (v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge-sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.