Allowed

Akram Shah v. the State through

Karnataka HC8 Aug 2017CRL.P/200845/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C regarding crimes involving POCSO and IPC sections, the Court allowed release on bail subject to stringent conditions including a personal bond, surities, regular appearance before the police, and prohibition on hindering investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties, fortnightly police appearances, and conditions against tampering with investigation.

Akram Shah Vs the State through — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.200845/2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

Akram Shah S/o Abdul Rasheed Aged: 22 years, Occ: Centering work R/o Hallikhed (B) Village Tq: Humnabad Dist: Bidar

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri. Anil Kumar Navadagi, Advocate)

¶11

And:

¶12

The State through Hallikhed (B) Police Station Tq. Humnabad Dist: Bidar By the Addl. S.P.P. High Court of Karnataka Kalaburagi Bench

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

(By Sri P.S.Patil, HCGP)

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to allow the petition and enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.34/2017 of Hallikhed (B) Police Station of District Bidar, which is now pending in Spl. Case No.60/207 on the file of Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Bidar, which is registered for the offences punishable under section 498(A), 376(2), 120(B), 463 R/w 149 of IPC, under sections 6 & 17 of POCSO Act, & under section 9, 10 & 11 of Child Marriage Act.

¶16

¶17

This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, seeking regular bail in Crime No.34/2017 of Hallikhed (B) P.S, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 376(2), 120(B), 463 of IPC, under Section 6 of POCSO Act and also under Section 9, 10 and 11 of Child Marriage Act.

¶20

The brief facts as per the complaint is that; complainant is the third daughter to her parents. Since last one and half years she was knowing the petitioneraccused No.1 who is also belonging to her village and he used to ask her to love him as he wanted to marry her. In that light, on 17.5.2016 near Darga of Dadapeer, one Suleman has obtained her and parents signature forcibly and accused persons have performed her marriage. It is further alleged that, after the marriage, for about six months complainant resided in the house

¶21

¶22

of her husband-accused No.1. Thereafter, petitioner and other accused were assaulting and beating her and. When the petitioner became pregnant, accused persons aborted her on 11.3.2017 and she was driven out from the matrimonial house, which promptly led the complainant to lodge a complaint against them before the concerned police.

¶23

Heard the arguments of canvassed by the

¶24

learned counsel for the petitioner and the High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State.

¶25

The main grounds urged by the learned

¶26

counsel for the petitioner are that; petitioner and the victim used to love each other. The victim is aged about 16-17 years and she willingly married with the petitioner and stayed with him after the marriage. He would further contend that, there is no allegation as against the petitioner. The allegations which have been made against the in-laws and they have been already

¶27

¶28

released on bail by the jurisdictional Sessions Court. He would further contend that there is no overtacts on the part of the petitioner. He would further contend that petitioner used to love the victim-complainant and has got married with her and only because of illtreatment and harassment given by in-laws, she has foisted a false case. He would further contend that the statement given by the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C is also directed against the in-laws, but not against the petitioner. He would further contend that the petitioner is having both movable and immovable properties, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this court including offering the sureties. Hence, on these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶29

On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently contended that, petitioner along with

¶30

¶31

other accused persons have kidnapped the minor girl and they have got married with accused No.1. Thereafter, they have ill-treated and harassed for demand of dowry and they have tried to abort her when she was pregnant. He would further contend that, accused have has committed a serious offence, which is punishable with 10 years of imprisonment. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may abscond and he may not available for trial. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

I have gone through the contents of the complaint and other material, which has been produced along with the petition.

¶33

As could be seen from the records, primly

¶34

the complaint which indicates that earlier to the filing of the complaint victim and the accused used to love each other and they were intending to marry. Subsequently, the victim got married with the petitioner and she lived

¶35

¶36

in the matrimonial house for about six months. Thereafter, the allegations as stated in the complaint are that victim has been assaulted and she has been demanded for dowry and other aspects. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. also indicates that in-laws have harassed the victim by illtreating and demanded for dowry. The said statement also not making any serious allegations as against the petitioner when the petitioner is said to have been married with the victim and they were loving with each other, under such circumstances that too when already charge sheet has been filed, I feel that by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.

¶37

For the above reasons, the petition is allowed and petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:

¶38

¶39

i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶40

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

¶41

iii) The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶42

iv) The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer once in fortnight till conclusion of trial.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

BL Ct:vk

Akram Shah v. the State through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akram Shah v. the State through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Madanan Pillai S S/O. Sreedaran Pillai Vs the State through

Earappa and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Hussainsab S/O Khasimsab Vs Siddappa @Siddanna S/O Nagappa.Hirekurubar and Anr.

Fayaz Husen S/O Makbool @ Khabula Husen and Ors. Vs the State through Raichur West Police Station

Javeed S/O Nabilal Bagewadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Balappa Vs the State of Karnataka