Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 456 (KAR)

Mohammed Shameem v. State of Karnataka

2023-03-16

V SRISHANANDA

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER V Srishananda, J. - Heard Sri. Rajashekar.S, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. S.Viswamurthy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records. 2. Present petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: 'Wherefore, the petitioners most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow this petition and enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in Crime No.3/2023 registered by the Moodabidre Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC, pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Moodabidre. Mangalore City and grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.' 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: A complaint came to be lodged by Sri.Abdul Hameed S/o of Late M.A.Hacchabba Haji, with the Moodabidre Police Station registered a case in Crime No.0003/2023 on 03.01.2023 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) against the petitioners. 4. Gist of the complaint averments reveal that the daughter of the complainant by name Fathimath Asreen, was aged about 19 years and she had completed her 2nd year PUC in Alva's College, Moodabidre and was pursuing a Fashion Designer course. 5. He was sought to be given in marriage to Sri.Badruddin resident of Manjeshwara, Hosangady, Kerala State. It is alleged that the first petitioner herein having known about the said engagement, called Sri.Badruddin over the telephone and told that he is having love affair with Fathimath Asreen and the marriage talks failed. On enquiry with Fathimath Asreen by the complainant, she admitted that she had love affair with the first petitioner. There was a panchayath convened in that regard and in that panchayath, the first petitioner has sought two years' time to marry Fathimath Asreen and there was anagreement in that regard on 27.10.2022 in the presence of the lawyer. On enquiry with Fathimath Asreen by the complainant, she admitted that she had love affair with the first petitioner. There was a panchayath convened in that regard and in that panchayath, the first petitioner has sought two years' time to marry Fathimath Asreen and there was anagreement in that regard on 27.10.2022 in the presence of the lawyer. He also agreed that the first petitioner would not have any connection with the Fathimath Asreen till such time and despite such agreement, the first petitioner kept on talking to the Fathimath Asreen and ultimately and the same was objected by the mother of the first petitioner was called, she has told that he is not interested in marrying of the first petitioner and Fathimath Asreen know about the same, Fathimath Asreen committed suicide and therefore, sought for action against the petitioners herein. 6. The attempt made by the petitioners herein are to obtain an order of grant of anticipatory bail, which was turned down by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mangalore by order dated 31.01.2023 in Crl. Misc. No.23/2023. Thereafter, the petitioners are before this Court. 7. Sri. Rajashekar.S., learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the bail petition, vehemently contended that the petitioners are innocent of the offence alleged against the petitioners and they are not aware of why Fathimath Asreen committed the suicide and they have been falsely implicated in this case by the police and sought for grant of anticipatory bail. 8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader however opposes the grant of anticipatory bail by contending that the first petitioner who was responsible for the failure of marriage between Badruddin and Fathimath Asreen and as a result, Fathimath Asreen got frustrated the life and committed suicide and therefore, the petitioners have abated the suicide of Fathimath Asreen and are directly responsible for suicide and death of Fathimath Asreen. Therefore, he sought for rejection of the bail petition. 9. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that the deceased herself had admitted that she had love affair with the first petitioner for about four years. Therefore, he sought for rejection of the bail petition. 9. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that the deceased herself had admitted that she had love affair with the first petitioner for about four years. When the parents of Fathimath Asreen tried to have an engagement with Badruddin, the first petitioner intimated to Badruddin he is having love affair with the deceased. As such, the marriage talks between Badruddin and Fathimath Asreen failed. Subsequently, the incident has occurred in the house of the complainant and Fathimath Asreen committed suicide. 11. What exactly in the role played by the petitioners in such suicide the death of Fathimath Asreen needs to be investigated and an appropriate report is to be filed by the Investigating Officer as is not completed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. 12. Admittedly, the petitioners are not available for the investigation and therefore, the investigation process has been crippled to a considerable extent. 13. Directing the petitioners to join the investigation and to co-operate with the investigation would facilitate the investigation process and also ordering for limited custodial trial would meet the need of prosecution. 14. Accordingly, without expressing much opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court pass the following: ORDER 1. The Criminal Petition is allowed. 2. Petitioners are directed to join the investigation process by appearing before the Investigating Officer on 27.03.2023 at 10.00 a.m. 3. The Investigating Officer is at liberty to take them to custody and to complete the custodial interogation on the same day before 6.00.p.m. 4. If any incriminating materials facilitated in custodial trial, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to utilize the same for filing appropriate report . Thereafter, Investigating Officer shall release the petitioners on taking a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer; 3. Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly; 4. Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/indirectly; 5. Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Mangalore District without prior permission; 6. Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating agency and they shark mark theri attendance before the Investigating Officer on every alternate Sunday between 10.00 am and 2.00 pm., till the final charge sheet is filed. Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/indirectly; 5. Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Mangalore District without prior permission; 6. Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating agency and they shark mark theri attendance before the Investigating Officer on every alternate Sunday between 10.00 am and 2.00 pm., till the final charge sheet is filed. Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail. Ordered accordingly.