Posted On by &filed under High Court, Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka High Court
Smt Jabin W/O Gani Jamadar vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 January, 2010
Author: Arali Nagaraj
(By S'I~i;.P;I}i;G:g<i:;gI§i'1Id HCGP.)


DATED Ti--IES mi: 28"' DAY OF JANUARY  ,:" 

13 ii 15' O R E


CRL.P. NO. 7045/_2m"e_i'Ie


Srnt.Jabin W/0. Gani Jamadar'    A,  »
Age: 35 years, Occ: HousehoA1Vd_v'w_ork__, L 
R/o. Laxmi--Nagar HiI3.d'a.1_aga_', " 
Dist: Belgaum. "   
(By Sri.Laxmikaiit--V..K;-.'C§_:t1ray?'«A';3'V'%i:§AEit€€9 
AND: At T t i

The State of Kar-nLa'taka';  V'
By Camp Police B'eig'aune., 
Represente'(i'by,State' Rtivbiic Prosecutor,
CiITI~;':'VIi'i.'£'.'" """ 

A' ' A  ...Resp0ndent.

This  Petition is filed U/S.439 Cr.P.C. by the

" 'adivi:--eate for the petitioner praying that this I~_Ion'ble Court

  may be Apieased to release the petitioner on baii in Camp

  a.C'-rimee' No.10?/2008 for the offences punishable
"'~._"Li/iS__ec"s.5£)4, and 302 1'/W.S€C.34 of IPC.




This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
made the following: 7 


The accused No.2 in

Camp P.S. in Belgauan City has.»n’i’i._led ‘thel”preseen-tsioeititligoini

U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C. This petitii_o”n_: .1; oippéjséd by the

prosecution by filing writtenoibjyeoytifonsi’to-i

2) Heard sides. Perused
the averments in:thefiolhniipla<i'r1ltjvvcaindothzer material placed on

record by the .lCioiii1't_Gloyern1nent Pleader.

3) Thelllicalse, of_lit”n,1e’v.l{o.1’osecution as alleged in the
co~I”nplain..t_j’ldated__0lll”i’#2..().09 filed by the complainant Gafur

Babu:3an§adar,_i’re’siydent of Belgaum, is as under:

a)–.fH viillie complainanfs second son Gani
deceased) was married to the “present
it yd”ii;;etbitfi’A::)ner–accused about 1.6 years ago. He was
i residing with the petitioner at Laxmi Nagar in

mBHeigau1n City. He was running Autorickshaw.



b) The complainanfis said son and the

petitioner were quarrelling with each other.

The elder brother of the petitioner namel_y”””i’

Ahdul Latif (Accused No.1) used to interyelneg l

in the quarrels between the dec,e’asled’«an-.d

wife (Petitioner).

c) On 1/11/2009 at aeddt V

while the complainantqyvas iii” ‘house, lone./i

Nawaj came and inforinegcl (that);sio’ni:le.)i”q»uar1’el
was going on b.etvween”*’tli.e:j his
wife (petitioner of the
deceased. rushed
to the :re’siid’e.1)::;e oi)?”rails.,d’ecea’se’d'”:son and saw
that thetdecieaseidftifas.Lllysi:ng_;dead in his house
and his namely Rahil and

Muskgan s.wer’e”‘crying.’ The complainant came

i’to.Vl{1ioVi}’.”*fron:i his said grand children that on

ii’t_h’e_}p’reif’i«ou-slnight the deceased had picked up

quarrel wi’thj_ his wife (petitioner) and on the

gVmoi’n’ing”‘.(og’itliat day also he again picked up

,t;ua;:’__lfelllwith the petitioner and therefore the

e.rsa:id cihildren telephoned to the accused No.1

Latif (elder brother of the petitioner)

and informed about the said quarrel. Then the


said Abdul Latif came to the house of the
deceased and assaulted the deceased with _
knife on his chest. At that time the petitionezfwii i

instigated her brother saying that he

not leave the deceased, as she was fed*u..p7.wi1tli.:_”: ‘-
the ill-treatment given to her
result of the said assault il{n.i_fe,u

deceased sustained fatal ‘diediii *

4) The postmortem available
in the police deceased
was due to result of stab injury
to his chest. 16 years old, son
of the deceasiedland reveals that, on
the said mofsning itihe..:idVe’cieasiediiiheat the petitioner during. the

quarreil’ and therefore she asked him

::..,v(Rahi1i’)” .t_o-i’___teiIevi:ih,o_neV;’to accused No.I and inform the same

theni”‘the»–._’iace’used No.l came to the house of the

veandiiquestioned the deceased as to why he was

iii”i-it;e%at~i.r:gin’-Zhiisii wife (petitioner) again and again and after

ifvqueiistioning so he assaulted the deceased.


5) Thus it is clear from the said statement that this

petitioner did not intend to cause death of the deceased.

Whether she shared common intention with the

No.1 of causing death of the deceased is

established by the prosecution during the ‘7

6) Having regard to the facts andcI’ircums’tan4c-esrot’

the case as aforesaid, I feel that thiie=.ein«.£s 0ifl’_§Ll:$lL.lC€ii§VVOUlCl
be met with, if the petitio’ne’i’_’is_ grain’t–e:d:i:ail subject to

certain conditions. I”I.e11-cve the”‘f0ll:’Qw’in”g.; V’


The’fileiidll/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C. by the

pet,itionerV_’:’téihoi’is accu3ve.d…No.2 in Crime No.i07/2009 of

Carnp.—-City, is hereby aliowed. She shall be

don her furnishing a self bond for

“32,.-:Sv:v’4″‘Ql3′()()0/W aiflcing with one surety for the like sum to the

of the Cornrnittai Court and subject to

coridit.ions that:

a) she shaii not, directly or indirectiy,
tamper with the prosecution evidence nor sha1i_~,”‘ it

she threaten the prosecution witnesses.

b) she shali co-operate

during the investigation of this case_:’…_?

A copy of the operative poiit_i_Von,. of t’E~:iVs o_rCier”«shva1}–‘be

sent forthwith to the Co;.t.1.1rnitta_.1—–i:A.C–oi.’1–zCt coi”nCe.rn..:id for

information and compiiance.


Mrk/- pppp ‘A . ..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.159 seconds.