IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF DECEMBER
BEFORE E E
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE N.A1\@ANBA;Vi A
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.A6f2%Q3§/2«oJA{0 :1
BETWEEN:
1. Ekbal Ahmed
Son of late Shukur'S__ab
Aged about 55 Years} '
2. Azeem Ahrnedf' _ .4 '
Son ofiqbaill
Aged about'26:¥eB,rs;-._».__ A
Both resideiitsiiiof : '73 «V
Arrnuga-_r_n Road
Near Maizgaiore -Garage' A .. __ .-
Vij ayapura'~Exter1s'ioIi; = _" _,
Chikmagalur" "City a1-'1d"District. . . .PE'I'ITIONERS
J E' '(By a«gadees'h,A VAdV.)
Staterof Karriataka by
'.Basavar1éihal1i Police Station
~ Rep, by the State Public Prosecutor
I A.H3'ghCOurt of Karnataka
" _Ba,r1g:~=J'ore. ...RESPONDENT
'{By'§Sri.Vijayakumar Majage, HCGP)
This Cr1.P is fiied under Section 438 Cr.P.C
praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of
their arrest in Cr.NO.15O/2010 of Basavanahaliy Police
Station, Chikmagalur district, registered for offences
punishable under sections 302, 304-13 r/ W 34 IPC.
This petition coming on for orders
Court made the following:
The petitioners are arrayed as.y_accused'VPJo'.2 'an'd'3 0'
in Crime No.iE50/ 2010 "1~eTg"istered--.._0_ foffences
punishable under Sections /W
2. The first accused"Sh:afi'Ahnied "tile son of first
petitioner and pf seé'ond:petitioner.
3_iThe. ff1fnarr.iage accused with deceased
Shabeenaf was perfor1ne'd.ra.bout 3 1/2 years prior to
_ 01.09.20 10. ffhereafter, she was living in the house of
petitioners,' Tiie first accused was demanding deceased
to demanded the deceased to get
«money business. When the first accused and
0' 'gggceascdvvapproached the first informant Suheel @ Lallu
of deceased) he pacified the couple and had set
separate house for first accused and deceased at
Nelamangala. They stayed in the house for sometime
and thereafter, returned back to the house of parents of
{\.'. 0
/
Q,
I
first accused. The first accused was again harassing
the deceased. Therefore, on 31.8.2010, deceased
committed suicide by consuming poison in .
the petitioners.
4. At the first instance, a crirnewas rge.gistered':*.fo1< V
an offence punishable under Section After
investigation, an offence-._ unfdeprf 'Section 302 was not
included in the charge sheet. iriifestigation records
' reveal prima--f:+icie:jiVrcase::xagainstiéthe"first accused who in
fact has beejnpgifanted
5.i'..f1'h--e' the father--in--Iaw of the
deceased andffsecondQp'eti'tioner is the brother----in-law of
.--the vgdeciepased. Hi "*'The. allegations made against the
V.'-.p'etit'ioners*r :v'pri'1na--facie do not attract an offence
puiiisiiabfeiinder Section 302 I.P.C.
Therefore, without going into further details, the
soiight for is granted for a limited period to
..__"".enabie the petitioner to seek regular bail. 7
4 7
7. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
Petition is accepted. Petitioners are
anticipatory bail, subject to following conditiotislilli do ‘
1] If the petitioners are.arrested’whirl./I. if
No.150/2010 of B;asav_aiivahai1y::l’pv
Chikmagalur Distrilctuj registered llofflences
punishable under 34
1.13.0, they shall ‘bail on their
ta; of Rs.25,000/– each
Offering the likesum.
2]_Petit’ion’ers’;–shall”not intimidate or tamper with
the ‘prosuecu”t”ion Witnesses.
l ‘{3} for the purpose of investigation,
appear before the Investigating Officer,
ll whenever called upon to do so.
This order would be operative for a period of
two months from today within such time,
petitioners shall seek regular bail before the
W, 9
jurisdictional Court. In such an event, 1:h__e
learned Judge of the jurisdictional Court sha:1L1M%j_T%-V
consider baii applications \7v”ith0ut_ ‘;–
influenced by observations made. in t’hisii)réfier}’ V