KABC010086102024 IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46) DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 PRESENT: Sri Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B., XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. CRL.MISC. No.3052/2024 Petitioners 1.Akbar Ali S/o late Ibrahim Ali Khan, a/a 72 Yrs., 2.Smt. Sabia W/o Akbar Ali, a/a 65 Yrs., Both are r/a No.25, 3rd Cross, LIC Colony, tilaknagar, Bangalore. (By Sri/Smt; Reny Sebastian, Advocate) AND Respondent State by Thilaknagar P. S., Bengaluru. (By the learned Public Prosecutor) ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.439 OF Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for petitioners has filed bail petition U/s.439 of Cr.P.C. to release her on bail consequent upon their Crl.Misc.No.3052/2024 remand to judicial custody in the case registered against them and others by the respondent Police on the complaint of Sri Abdul Majeed, a/a 63 Yrs., who is the father of deceased- Madheeha Shazeen the offence punishable U/s.306 of IPC in their Crime No.46/2024 in the interest of justice. 2.The brief facts of the bail petition is that on the basis of the information of Sri Maqsood Ahmed, a/a 50 Yrs., the respondent police registered case in Crime No.46/2024 against the petitioners and others for the offence punishable U/s.306 of IPC. The petitioners were arrested on 11.03.2024, and produced her before the concerned Magistrate, and wherein they were was remanded to judicial custody and till date they are is in judicial custody. 3.The petitioner claims innocence and contending that They have been falsely implicated in the said case and further contending that they have not committed any offences as alleged in the complaint. They are ready to abide by any conditions that would be imposed by this court, therefore the petitioners have prayed for allowing this petition. 4.The Learned Public prosecutor has filed objection to this bail petition in detail along with report of I.O., by submitting that this petition is not maintainable in law or on facts and for the reasons stated in the objection and has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5.Heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the materials on record. Crl.Misc.No.3052/2024 6.The points that arises for consideration of this Court are as under:

1. Whether the petitioner has made out

sufficient grounds for her release on bail atthisstageasprayedfor?

2. Whatorder?

7.This Court has answered the above points are as under: PointNo.1 : IntheNegative PointNo.2 : Asperfinalorder forthefollowing: R E A S O N S

8. Point No.1: On considering the papers on record, it is

evident to note that the respondent police have registered case against the petitioners and others in crime No.46/2024 for the offence punishable U/s.306 of IPC based on the complainant of defacto complainant-Sri Abdul Majeed, a/a 63 Yrs., It is alleged in the complaint that on 11.04.2019 the marriage of daughter of complainant by name Madheeha Shazeen was solemnized with the accused No.1, and after the marriage daughter of complainant started residing along with family members of accused No.1 at house bearing No.25, ground Floor, situated at 3rd Cross, 3rd Block East Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560 041. At that time the accused persons subjected the daughter of complainant to physical and mental cruelty in demanding additional dowry. After the advise of parents of deceased, the accused persons continued to harass the daughter of complainant physically and mentally in demanding Crl.Misc.No.3052/2024 additional dowry. Unable to tolerate the harassment of accused persons the daughter of complainant by feeling hurt and disgusting committed suicide by hanging at her matrimonial house on 11.03.2024 at 4.00 p.m. It is also alleged that the accused persons are the route cause for instigating and abetting deceased-Smt. Madeeha Shazeen by harassing her physically and mentally in demanding additional dowry to commit suicide, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint against accused persons for the alleged offence and also by suspecting the murder of her daughter before the respondent police. 9.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is no intention or motive specifically attributed to the petitioners, only on suspicious ground the case has been registered against the petitioners on the false complaint of father of the deceased, and the petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. It is also contended that though there is no averment in the complaint regarding the abetment by the petitioners and in spite of the same, they have been falsely implicated with a sole intention to harass and humiliating on false complaint that has been registered. The petitioners hails from a respectable family having deep roots in the society without any criminal antecedents, ready to furnish surety to the satisfaction of the Court and abide the conditions. Hence, they prayed to allow this petition. 10.it is also the contention of petitioners is that they are innocent of the offences alleged and there is absolutely no case Crl.Misc.No.3052/2024 made out against them for the alleged offences. But, as pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, that the respondent police have registered FIR in Crime No.46/2024 against the petitioners and others for the offence punishable U/s.306 of IPC, investigation is not yet completed, at this stage if the bail is granted in favour of the petitioners, then they may abscond and also tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the investigation, and this Court cannot come to the conclusion that the petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged against them. Hence, at this stage the contention of petitioner that they are innocent of the offence alleged against them does not stand for consideration. It is not desirable on the part of this Court at this stage to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged against her. 11.On the basis of arguments of learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, verified the FIR, complaint and relevant case papers. On perusal of the entire records placed before the Court prima facie discloses that the petitioners and others have caused the death of deceased-Smt. Madeeha shazeen by subjected her to physically and mentally in demanding additional dowry. It is also equally important to note that offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable U/ s.306 of IPC. Even though the offence U/s.306 of IPC, which is though not punishable with death, but with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine and triable by this Court. Crl.Misc.No.3052/2024 12.It is well settled principle of law that the granting of bail is discretionary power of the Court and every case should be considered on the basis of facts of each case. On perusal of the entire records placed before the Court, prima facie it discloses that there is direct allegation against the petitioners that they have caused the death of deceased-Smt. Madeeha Shazeen by subjecting her to mentally and abetting her to commit suicide. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2021 CRI.L.J.2678: AIR online 2021 SC 205 in Criminal Appeal No.343 of 2021(arising out of SLP(Crl.,) No.1530 of 2021) and Interlocutory Application Nos.24659 and 41412 of 2021 dated 19.03.2021 (State of Kerala V. Mahesh) has held that when the incident is heinous, the Court has to consider the material on record, which prima facie made out reasonable grounds to believe that accused has committed the alleged offence. The Court should not proceed to grant bail by considering the period of custody of the accused till the investigation completed. In the instant case also the investigation is yet to be completed and final report is not filed. The defacto complainant has also suspected the murder of her daughter. Considering all these aspects, it is found that at the stage of investigation if the petitioners are released on bail, it may cause delay in investigation and there is possibility of petitioner influencing the witnesses and to trace out the absconding accused persons. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V., Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC528:2004SCC(Cri)1977. In para 11 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Crl.Misc.No.3052/2024 while granting bail the Court should exercise its discretion in a judicial manner and not a matter of course. ItisalsonecessaryfortheCourtgrantingbail toconsider (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supportingevidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnessorapprehensionofthreattothecomplainant, (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, as a dictum of law laid down in Ram Govind Upadhyay V. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598:2002SCC(Cri)688that “Grant of bail though being a discretionary order – but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent cannot be sustained. And also in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar V. Ashis Chatterjee; (2010) 14 SCC 496: (AIR 2011 SC 274), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 9….However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously, andstrictlyincompliancewiththebasisprinciples laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, amount other Crl.Misc.No.3052/2024 circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while consideringanapplicationforbailare: (i)Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused committed the offence; (ii)natureandgravityoftheaccusation; (iii)severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if releasedonbail; (v)character, behaviour, means, position and standingoftheaccused; (vi)likelihoodoftheoffencebeingrepeated; (vii)reasonableapprehensionofthewitnessesbeing influenced; and (viii)danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grantofbail. In the instant case while applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the fact of the case, it is clear that while disposing the bail petition of the petitioners involved in heinous offence, the Court has to exercise its discretion in a judicial manner as per the dictum of ratio by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said case, and not a matter of course. The gravity of the offence and the manner, has to how the crime has been executed has to be taken into consideration. Further as per the materials on record it is clear Crl.Misc.No.3052/2024 that the petitioners were remanded to judicial custody on 11.03.2024, and they are in judicial custody for a period of 29 days is not a valid ground to grant bail in their favour at this stage as per the reasons and discussions made above. The facts before the Court prima facie disclose the involvement of petitioners in committing the alleged offence against women and society. There is absolutely no ground made out by the petitioner to grant bail to her as sought for in the petition. Hence, this bail petition does not merit consideration on the facts of the case and also in law, considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence alleged against petitioners is not entitle for relief as prayed. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.

13. Point No.2: In view of answer of this Court on point

No.1, this court proceed to pass the following:- O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioners U/s.439 of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed. (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 8th day of April, 2024) (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. MANJUNATH DigitallyRAMA NAIKsigned by MANJUNATH RAMA NAIK Date:+05302024.04.25 16:58:51 Crl.Misc.No.3052/2024 Order pronounced in the open court vide its separate order O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioners U/s.439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Crl.Misc.No.3052/2024