The Petitioner’s Custody can not become ground for bail : High Court of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7676 2021 BETWEEN: MUJEEB AHMED S O MUEEB AHMED AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R AT NO 318 8TH CROSS BEHIND AMEER HAZAM MUSJID ’C’ BLOCK GHOUSIYA NAGAR MYSORE CITY 570019 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BY UDAYAGIRI POLICE STATION MYSORE CITY 570019 AMBEDKAR VEEDHI HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU 560001 BY SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P DAROJI ADVOCATE) … PETITIONER … RESPONDENT BY SRI K.K.KRISHNA KUMAR HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL 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 AND ETC. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R 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. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State. 3. 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 In view of the discussions made above I pass the The bail petition is rejected. Sd this petitioner. 

Summary: The criminal petition filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C. (Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest) for the enlargement on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 498A( husband or relatives of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty),304(b)( Dowry death), 302( punishment for murder), 212 (harboring offender) with Section 34 of IPC (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) and under Sections 3( penalty for giving or taking dowry), 4( penalty for demanding dowry) and 6 ( Dowry to be benefits of the wife or her heirs ) Dowry prohibition Act by the petitioner. And the petition is rejected by the High court of Karnataka through the learned bench led by the Honorable MR. JUSTICE H P Sandesh in the case of Mujeeb Ahmed vs State of Karnataka ( criminal petition no.7676/2021) on 20th January 2022.  Brief facts of the case are 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 still continued. On the date of incident, the deceased was in her parental house with her child and the 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.  Arguments presented by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner 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 hence, the petitioner is entitled for the bail.  Arguments presented by the learned High court government pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent that the additional documents produced by the petitioner himself show that in terms of the opinion of department of Forensic Medicine dated 18thJune 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 that is , 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 that is 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.  Finally the court concluded in favour of respondent and held that sole custody of the accused cannot be the ground for bail and rejected the bail petition of petitioner. And the bail petition is rejected by the court. Click here to read the judgement