High CourtsSingle Bench

Mohsin Pasha vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 28 December 2010 · Citation: (2010) 12 KAR CK 0084

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.N. Keshavanarayana, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 304 B, 306, 498A
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal P. No. 5817 of 2010
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 521 words

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—Deceased Salma Kauser was the daughter of Jaheer Ahamed, resident of Shamanna garden, Bangalore. She was given in marriage to the Petitioner herein about three years prior to 31.7.2010. After the marriage, the deceased was living with the Petitioner in the matrimonial home. After sometime, they started living in a separate house. Out of the wedlock, she had given birth to a male child. Suspecting her fidelity, the Petitioner was picking up quarrels frequently in the house. On 31.7.2010, the deceased Salma Kauser died on account of hanging. After coming to know of the same, the father of the deceased lodged a complaint, based on which, case in Crime No. 250/2010 came to be registered by Chamarajpet police for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed u/s 498A and 304B against the Petitioner herein, his parents and his sister. During investigation, Petitioner and his father were arrested, while the mother and sister of the Petitioner obtained anticipatory bail. Subsequently, the father of the Petitioner was enlarged on bail by the learned Sessions Judge. The application filed by the Petitioner seeking bail was rejected Hence, the present petition.

2.

Heard both sides.

3.

As could be soon from the allegations made in the complaint, there were frequent quarrels between the husband and wife, as the Petitioner was suspecting the fidelity of his wife. In this connection, panchayaths were held and the Petitioner had been advised accordingly. Thereafter, the Petitioner and the deceased were living separately from their parents. According to the complaint allegations, the deceased had died in the background of suspicion expressed by the Petitioner with regard to her fidelity. In the complaint, there is no allegations against the Petitioner or any of his family members demanding dowry or subjecting the deceased to cruelty or harassment According to the prosecution, in the further statement, complainant disclosed that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the dowry.

4.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the ease and the material available en record, I do not see prima facie evidence at this stage against the Petitioner that the deceased had bean subjected to cruelty and harassment In connection with the dowry to attract the ingredients of Section 304B of IPC.

5.

Having regard to the allegations made in the complaint and the material available on record, I find no prima facie material to indicate that the Petitioner herein has Committed offence u/s 498A of IPC and therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No. 250/2010 of Chamarajpet Police Station on Following conditions that;

i) The Petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate/Sessions Judge;

ii) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses or evidence in any manner and;

iii) He shall appear before the jurisdictional Magistrate/Sessions Judge on all hearing dates without fail.