Mujeeb Ahmed vs State Of Karnataka & Others

H.P. Sandesh, J

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.20/2020 registered by the Udayagiri Police

Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304(b), 302, 212 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.

The factual matrix of the case is that at the time of marriage, the petitioner and his family members have demanded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as

dowry and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with gold articles were given at the time of marriage and marriage was performed in the year 2017 and

the petitioner and the victim gave birth to a child and the dowry harassment was continued. On the date of incident, the deceased was in her parental

house with her child and this petitioner came there and took the victim to his house leaving the child in her parental house and started quarreling with

her and committed murder by strangulating the deceased and escaped from the spot. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case,

investigated and filed the charge-sheet.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though an allegation is made against this petitioner is that he has strangulated the victim and

the medical evidence not corroborates with the same and the counsel also submits that as per the PM report of the deceased, the deceased not died

due to any pressure over the neck and accused Nos.2 and 3 have been enlarged on bail and there is a delay in lodging the complaint and there is no

explanation for the said delay and this petitioner is in custody from the last 1½ years and only based on the voluntary statement, the prosecution has

build up the case and hence, the petitioner is entitled for the bail.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the additional documents produced by the

petitioner himself show that in terms of the opinion of department of Forensic Medicine dated 18.06.2020, it is clear that the possibility of death

resulting from Cardiac arrest due to vagal inhibition cannot be ruled out considering the circumstances mentioned and such as pressure over the neck.

Hence, it is clear that it is a case of strangulation. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the State submits that on the very same day, this

petitioner took the victim to his house from her parental house leaving the child there itself and committed the murder and the witnesses i.e., CW30

and 31 who have been witnessed to the incident stated that after committing the murder, this petitioner left the house in a motorcycle and apart from

that the other witness i.e., CW8 also stated with regard to the panchayat held and hence, there is prima facie materials against this petitioner and

hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the documents on record and taking into note of the factual aspects of the case, it is

clear that marriage was solemnized in the year 2017 and this petitioner was in the habit of demanding dowry and in that connection, they quarreled

each other on the date of incident also and a prima facie material discloses with regard to the strangulation of the deceased and the same was

corroborates with the opinion of Forensic department that due to pressure over the neck, there is a possibility of death resulting from Cardiac Arrest

due to vagal inhibition. When such opinion is obtained and eye-witnesses i.e., CW30 and 31 also speaks with regard to the alleged incident stating that

after committing the murder of the deceased, he escaped from the spot, there is a prima facie material against this petitioner and hence, it is not a fit

case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner’s counsel that this petitioner is in custody from 1½

years is not a ground to enlarge him on bail and accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the in-laws of the deceased are also enlarged on bail is also not a

ground to exercise the discretion in favour of this petitioner.

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

The bail petition is rejected.