AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Criminal Petition No.10050/2017 is connected with Criminal Petition No.10049/2017. Since both the petitions arisen out of same incident, they
were taken together for disposal by this common order in order to avoid repetition of discussion of facts and law.
The first petition in Criminal Petition No.10050/2017 is filed by the accused No.1 and the connected petition in Criminal Petition
No.10049/2017 is filed by accused No.2.
The first petition is filed seeking regular bail and the connected petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail for the
alleged offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 61(1) and 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015
registered in respondent - police station Crime No.425/2017.
Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused in respect of both the petitions and also the learned High
Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are that, the complainant is working as a social worker in the child line. On
20.11.2017 at about 12.00noon, general public make a telephone call on ""1098"" ""Child Line"" and informed that a three year old boy in the house
of Smt. Razia Taj in Razak Palya, upon whom attempt to commit murder by burns is committed and requested the ""child line"" to come immediately
on the spot and save the child. Immediately the staff of ""child line"" viz., the complainant Smt. Radha, Suresh, Pradeep Kumar along with Bagalur
Police went to the house of Smt. Razia Taj, a three year old child with burn injuries was found in the said house. On enquiry Razia Taj stated that
her daughter Jabin Taj and her husband Abdul Rehaman who are residing in house No.165, 2nd Main, 3rd Cross, Balaji Extension,
Vidyaranyapura, Bengaluru brought the child to their house. Abdul Rehaman was also present and he disclosed that the name of the child as
Dhanush and he purchased the said child from Kumar of Kanshiram Nagar near Sambhram College for a consideration of Rs.5,000/- and adopted
him and maintaining him in his house. He along with his wife Jabin Taj infected burn injuries by heated vessel. The boy was brought to the house of
Razia Taj on 19.11.2017 at 10.00pm by Abdul Rahaman for taking care and treatment by his mother-in-law.
On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered against the petitioners herein for the said offences. Learned Counsel appearing
for the petitioners while arguing the case submitted that looking to the prosecution material there is no primafacie case as against the petitioners.
Even he also submitted that now the child has been already discharged from the hospital and in this connection he has produced the discharge
summary and made the submission that now the condition of the child is safe and the petitioners are ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to
be imposed by the Court. Hence, he made submission for grant of regular bail as well as anticipatory bail by imposing any reasonable conditions.
Per-contra, learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that looking to the seriousness of the offence on the small child of 3
1/2 years, that too causing burn injuries, the petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail. He submitted that investigation is still going on.
Hence, he opposed both the petitions.
I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case.
Looking to the materials and the contents of the complaint, there is an allegation against both petitioners herein that they have committed the
alleged offences causing burn injuries on the child aged only 3 1/2 years and it is no doubt true that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
produced the discharge summary of the Victoria Hospital, wherein the date of admission of the child Dhanush is shown as 20.11.2017 and the
date of discharge is shown as 24.11.2017. The petitioner/accused No.1 was arrested and from the date of arrest, he is in custody. So far as the
petitioner/accused No.2 is concerned, she has sought for anticipatory bail. The petitioners have contended that they have not involved in
committing the offence. So far as the petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned who filed bail petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is the husband of
the petitioner/accused No.2. The matter is still under investigation. Therefore, at this stage, it is not proper for this Court to allow the petitions and
to grant regular bail as well as anticipatory bail as prayed for.
Accordingly, for the present, both the petitions are rejected with a liberty to the petitioners in both petitions to approach the concerned Court after
completing the investigation and filing of the charge sheet.