High Court Karnataka High Court

Umeda Begum W/O Rahamathulla vs State Of Karnataka on 29 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Umeda Begum W/O Rahamathulla vs State Of Karnataka on 29 November, 2010
Author: N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OE KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

L

DATED THIS THE 29"" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE NANANDA 

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5518/20191'   

BEZI WEEN:

1.

Umeda Begum
W/0 Rahamathulla
Age 40 Years.

Farooq Ahmed
S/0 M.A.Samad V _
Age 48 years.

  
S/VQNI_.A.Sa1fi'ifa.de   'V
Age43'Years."  " 1

;?_ahamam u11a3 A

~  / 0 "Amanul-1.21__KhaI1
' 'AgeT'45 "Years.

. "S/O M-."A.Samad
"'«:Age__~30Years.

.  A11 areresidents of Sait Compound
" Bafzgarpet Town
     '_K01a'r District.
  [By Sri.R.Nataraj. Adv.)

AND:

State of Karnataka
By Bagngarpet Poiiee Station.
(By Sri.Vij ayakumar Majage, HCGP)

. . PETETIONERS

...RESPONDENT



This Crl.P is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C
praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of
their arrest in Cr.No.269/2010 of Bangarpet.KPo1ice
Station, KGF, registered for offences punishable'

sections 323, 498-A r/W 34 IPC and sections;'_'3';'4g_*a_nd:..v6« _

of Dowry Prohibition Act.  V -

This petition coming on ft')r"oi*der".s 
Court made the following:     -    

RDE R

The petitioners are  as  No.2 to 6
in Crime No.269V/'*2;C1_O'A-_g  for offences

punishable under Sections stir/W 34 1.19.0

and also"'for'T;offeia;Ces'~punishabie under Sections 3, 4

and 6 er newly"i>~;¥ehiia:tie ti,.Aet, 1961.

2.  "first Saccutsed is the husband of first

 «--._infor'inant Vvnameiyfiamida Unnisa. Their marriage was

":_.5.7.2009. The first information was

edged enS;f:.tsi::10.2010 alleging that the petitioners had

V'-~.assau'1teSd the first informant and demanded her to bring

   of Rs.1O Lakhs for sending her to Saudi Arabia

 _,_where the first accused was working. The first

information does not give specific instances of assault

and harassment for dowry. As of now, the first

'N at

 



s 3 _
informant is residing in her parents house in
Bannerghatta Road at Bangalore.

3. Considering the relationship of petitionersjwith
the first informant, nature of allegations 
them and offences for which the crime  
without going into further detailsf trig
for is granted for a lifflked  
petitioners to seek regular  . V V V f

4. In the result, l'p'_assr'th e'  f

  ORDER

Petitiorii _ _ Petitioners are granted

_ antié;i1§a’tory hai1.;.:s_ul)ject to following conditions:

‘AI.l€’,ATt”l’!{3′ petitioners are arrested in Crime
A i1i:¢;i2:e9./2010 of Bangarpet as. KGF
V”‘f:registered for offences punishable under
Sections 323, 498--A r/W 34 I.P.C., and aiso for
offences punishable under Sections 3. 4 and 6

of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, they shall

be released on bail on their executing bonds for

Ms, £,\,.,,w,g\W _

I-2

a sum of Rs.25,000/– each offering a surety for

the likesum.

2) Petitioners shall not intimidate or tampe1f__with

the prosecution witnesses.

3) Petitioners for the purpose of ‘

shall appear before the

whenever called upon toiado it

4) This order would beVt4t’o.peratixI–e”for’Ea period of
two months such time,

regular bail before the
° In such an event, the
of the jurisdictional Court shall
bail applications without being
‘V by observations made in this order.

Sd/55
EUDGE