Dismissed

Shaik Nadeem and Ors. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2017CRL.P/201307/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail, the High Court of Karnataka rejected the petition at the initial stage. The court noted the serious nature of the alleged offences, including kidnapping and sexual offences against a minor, and held that bail was not just and proper to grant.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail petition rejected.

Shaik Nadeem and Ors. Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201307/2017

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHAIK NADEEM S/O SHAIK BASHEER AGE: 23 YEARS OCC: DRIVER R/O: NEW RAHMATH NAGAR COLONY KALABURAGI-585102.

¶10

MOHD. AYUB S/O MOHD. RAFEEQ AGE: 21 YEARS OCC: PVT. JOB R/O: ZUBAIR COLONY, KALABURAGI-585102.

¶11

MOHD. SHAFI S/O ABDUL SALEEM AGE: 36 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O: MEHBOOB NAGAR COLONY, KALABURAGI-585102.

¶12

AYESHA BEGUM W/O SYED GOUSUDDIN AGE: 32 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O: SUBASH CHOWK, LATUR-413512.

¶13

¶14

SYED GOUSUDDIN S/O SYED TAJUDDIN AGE: 45 YEARS OCC: FLOWER BUSINESS R/O: SUBHASH CHOWK LATUR-413512.

¶15

FAHEEM BANU W/O ABDUL SALEEM AGE: 53 YEARS OCC: SOCIAL WORKER R/O: MEHBOOB NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585102.

¶16

... PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI.S.M.PATIL, ADV)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH GULBARGA RURAL P.S. KALABURAGI. NOW REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH-585103. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.P.S.PATIL, HCGP)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO THE CONCERNED POLICE TO RELEASE THE ACCUSED/PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.252/2017 OF GULBARGA RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363, 376(2)(N), 342, 506 AND 109 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND POCSO ACT 4, 6, 11, 12 AND 17 PENDING ON THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL AND DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶25

the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

¶26

The petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners/accused seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.252/2017 of Gulbarga Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(N), 342, 506, 109 R/w Section 149 of IPC and POCSO 4, 6, 11, 12 and 17.

¶27

The complaint is filed on 08.07.2017 by one Sri.Mohammad Ali Khan, stating that his second daughter aged 17 years 08 months is studying PUC. Rehan who is son of brother-in-law of his elder daughter, used to come to his house and as he is

¶28

¶29

relative. The said Rehaan used to move closely with his second daughter and as he came to know that they are loving each other, he advised both suitably.

¶30

On 28.06.2017 complainant left to

¶31

Ahamadabad on his work. He returned on 03.07.2017 at 07.30 p.m., when his wife informed that on 02.07.2017 at 05.00 a.m. when all were sleeping to bedroom, hearing somebody knocking doors. His second daughter thinking that complainant has returned from Ahamadabad, opened doors, when Rehaan forcibly entered and shut her mouth and another youth rushed to the spot, pushed others to bedroom and locked from out side and kidnapped her. Complainant enquired his elder daughter, son-in-law and brother of son-in-law but they ignored. He searched for his daughter but he could not trace. Complainant came to know that Rehaan with the assistance of his friends kidnapped his

¶32

¶33

daughter and parents of Rehaan, brother and uncle have abetted Rehaan and also financed him. Thus, case came to be registered against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(N), 342, 506, 109 R/w Section 149 of IPC and POCSO 4, 6, 11, 12 and 17.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners did not figure in FIR and are falsely implicated.

¶35

6. The learned HCGP opposes the bail petition

¶36

and submits that there are no grounds to grant bail to the petitioners and would further submit that petitioners guilty in raping the victim-girl knowing fully well that she is minor.

¶37

¶38

Considering the nature of the case and

¶39

offences, it is not just and proper to grant the bail to the petitioners. Hence, bail petition is devoid of merits and liable to be rejected.

¶40

Accordingly, bail petition is rejected.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

KJJ

Shaik Nadeem and Ors. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Nadeem and Ors. v. the State of Karnataka

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

Kamalakar and Ors. Vs State of Karnataka

Venkat S/O Bajirao Hugge Vs State of Karnataka through

Sanna Gaddeppa @ Gaddeppa Vs the State of Karnataka

Kanteppa Vs State of Karnataka

Basavaraj and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhimsha S/O Khatalappa Halagenor Vs State of Karnataka