V' .Ba'ng'aiore A
_ 1 _
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2339 DAY OF OCTOBER 2010
BEFORE
THE I-ION'BLE MRJUSTICE NANANDA V
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4"/62/2010 2' 'f ~
BETWEEN:
Moharnrned Ashraf Anwaruddin « .
S/o Anwaruddin
Aged about 31 Years 4'
R/a N'o.G--4, T Line
Road No.3, I-Iari Masjid
Shivaji Nagar
Murribai Sub--Urban e-'J4-~00 CF43." :4 ...PETITION ER
[By Sri'
AND: A A A
Stateby V
Chamrajpet P;S._ A
__ .R'ep_. by State-Public Prosecutor
' ,_ High C_ouArt of Karnataka
f Ii ' Couift.. Buildings
Bangai_om_.t'j--i.~' ...RESPONDEN'I'
{By Sriiiijayakumar Majage. HCGP)
" This Cr1.P is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C
praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
..._Cr.No.264/ 2010 of Chamarajpet Police Station, pending
on the fiie of the I--AC}\/IM, Bangalore, registered for the
offences punishable under sections 498»«A, 304»»B iPC
and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2 M»;
This petition coming on for orders this day, th
Court made the following: '
O R D E R
Heard learned Counsel for petitioner
Government Pleader for the State.
2. The petitioner is the:”iiu’sban.:ci”i_;o’fjd
Durdana. Their marriage was
Thereafter, petitioner and the
house of petitioner j4″p”f{.e constantly
harassing’ deceased in connection with
dowry d-erriand; V f.act.,_”i1e..–‘nad received dowry of Rs.1.5
lakhs _V at theV_:VtiIn’e Aofdinarriage. The petitioner was
._dpefnaaI1ding .deoeas’ed’Vto bring money to purchase a car.
alleged to have given single divorce and
deee_ased* sent back to her parental house at
K.”4″-..VVV”‘Banga1’ore. Even thereafter, petitioner was contacting
‘deceased over phone and demanding her to come back
-to Bombay along with a car. On 17.8.2010, deceased
committed suicide by consuming poison in her parental
y 91-nib;
house at Bangalore.
3 _
3. T he learned Counsel for petitioner would
submit that petitioner has given single divorce. At the
time of occurrence, deceased was not living_..__with
petitioner. ‘l’ here is no material on record
that soon before the death of deceased,
subjected to cruelty in connection»
dowry. _ _ . _ .. _. .
4. The learned Governrrient Pleader”iwi)ulldvllslubmit
that petitioner was overlfplhone and
was harassing her. The not available
in Tata Consultancy Services, where he was alleged to
have bee’/”I1.._ lWQri;irigl. ~ deceased had committed
_ ‘within of 3 years and 4 months from
.,tl1.e_ir marriage. As per the first information
of deceased, petitioner had driven away
deceased. his house at Bombay for her failure to
it lCfmeet.Athle demand of dowry. Even when deceased was
staying in her parental house, petitioner had not
allowed to live her peacefully. He was talking to her
over phone and demanding her to get back with a car.
— 4
5. On the face of these allegations, the
Investigating Officer cannot be denied of custodial
interrogation of petitioner, which in fact is
proper investigation of the case. Therefore?–ipetition K
dismissed. _ _ _ _ t _ V
After the order is dic_:tateci;,_
petitioner submits that petittioiner to
withdraw the petition’:as_ «appear before
the Investigating exercises
. . ‘ C6\»’~
3ur1sdie_tior1’=t1Iitier Section 438 C_3r.P.C., it has to at
. 1 intent:’:vand–ohje::’t. 438 Cr.P.C and it need not
be guidetiiéhyVvpetitiorieii; ‘Therefore, his submission is
nottenable. V-theresult, petition is dismissed.
Sd/..~
I “C199
” . ‘nae,’