(1.) ONE Smt. Mehaboobi Kutabuddin Kotwal lodged a complaint before the Police Sub Inspector, Banahatti police Station, stating that the deceased Mousin married the first accused by name Smt. Heenakousar. About four months after the marriage, it appears the said Mousin and the first petitioner started living separately, at Terdal. Thereafter, they started living at Banahatti in a rented house. In the said house, the deceased Mousin, his wife and one child were all living together. It is alleged that the said Heenakousar was not happy with the complainant and his family members. In this back ground, it is alleged that on 12/12/2013, at about 2.00 a.m., in the night, the complainant received a telephone call form one Yakub, the brother of the complainant stating that the son of the complainant died due to burn injuries. Immediately, the complainant and her husband went to Banahatti and seen the dead body of the deceased. They also observed that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were there near the house, but, they did not disclose anything as to how the death of the deceased occurred. The Doctor who has conducted the PM examination also has not yet given the final opinion. However, it is stated that the deceased suffered 90% of the burn injuries. It is an undisputed fact that on that particular day, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were there in the said house and the incident had happened in the night hours and it has to be ascertained by the police, how that particular incident happened. The circumstances, goes to show that the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and the deceased were there inside the house. The police have to investigate what exactly transpired between the deceased and the petitioners 1 and 2 on that particularly day. The learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor also brought to my notice that two witnesses examined by the police disclosed that on the said night, there was a quarrel between the petitioners 1 and 2 and as well as the deceased. Therefore, when such strong circumstances are there, in my opinion, the petitioners 1 and 2, who are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 3 are not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The custodial investigation is necessary so far as these two petitioners are concerned.
(2.) SO far as petitioner No. 3 arrayed as accused No. 4 is concerned, it appears she was not there in the house, on that particular day. She is the mother of accused No. 1. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade this Court that the accused No. 1 i.e. petitioner No. 1 is having a small child aged about one year and there is no one to look after the said child, but, nevertheless, the records disclose that the petitioner No. 3 is the mother of petitioner No. 1, and she will definitely take care of the said child.
(3.) HENCE , the following order is passed: -