Dismissed

Shauksth Ali Nabisab Nadaf v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2018CRL.P/101538/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 CrPC, the High Court of Karnataka rejected the plea for enlargement of bail for a petitioner charged with aggravated sexual offences and offences under the SC/ST POA Amendment Act. The court denied bail due to prima facie evidence of heinous offences and the risk of witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Bail petition under Section 439 CrPC rejected, refusing enlargement of bail for the accused.

Shauksth Ali Nabisab Nadaf Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

Crl.P.No.101538 of 2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

Shaukat Ali Nabisab Nadaf, S/o. Nabisab, Age 24 years, Occ.: Auto Driver, R/o.: Huluguru, Baligar Oni, Shiggaon Taluk, Haveri District.

¶9

… Petitioner

¶10

(By Shri B.Anwar Basha, Advocate)

¶11

And:

¶12

The State of Karnataka, (Through Shiggaon Police Station), Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, At Dharwad.

¶13

… Respondent

¶14

(By Shri Praveen K.Uppar, HCGP)

¶15

This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking to allow this petition and enlarge the petitioner-accused No.1 on bail in Spl. SC/ST Case No.08 of 2018 in connection with Cr. No.307 of 2017 registered in Shiggaon Police under Sections 363, 376(2)(I) of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 3(1)(W)(i)(ii), 3(2)(VA) and 3(2)(V) of SC and ST POA Amendment Act, 2015 pending trial of the case.

¶16

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

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶20

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking bail in Crime No.307 of 2017 of Shiggaon P.S for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(i) of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(Va) and 3(2)(V) of SC and ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant has filed the complaint against the petitioner before the Shiggaon Police, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner was harassing to the complainant’s daughter to love him. The complaint further alleged that the relatives and elders of the family members have advised to the petitioner not to do the same. Later, on 06.12.2017, when the victim was in her

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

house, the petitioner went near her house and took her in a private vehicle and committed sexual intercourse on her in a agricultural field of the village, which is belonging to one Mallappa Basappa Sherevada and thereafter the petitioner left the victim near the Agasikatte in Hulaguru village. The said incident was narrated before the complainant by the victim. Based on the complaint given by the complainant, crime came to be registered against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶25

that the petitioner is innocent and he is only the son of his parents and he has not committed any offences much less the offences leveled against him and he has been falsely implicated in this case in order to harass him. He further submits that the victim girl has given statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein she has stated that there was love affairs between the petitioner and the victim and they both have gone to Bangalore, at that time there was no sexual intercourse committed by the

¶26

: 4 :

¶27

petitioner on the victim, when the petitioner and victim come from Bengaluru, the elder of the village have impose fine of Rs.5,00,000/-. When the petitioner refuses to give the said amount, this false complaint has been lodged by the complaint. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for allowing the bail petition.

¶28

The learned HCGP opposes the bail petition filed by the petitioner and submits that there are prima facie materials on record establish that the accused had committed the alleged offences. He further submits that offences alleged are heinous in nature and if the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper the prosecution witnesses and abscond from the jurisdiction of the Court. On all these grounds, the learned HCGP prays for dismissal of the bail petition.

¶29

In the context and circumstances of the case, it is relevant to state that petitioner is said to be in judicial custody since from the date of arrest and it appears that the petitioner might try to interfere with the

¶30

: 5 :

¶31

prosecution witnesses and the victim as well. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the sincere view that, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Vnp*

Shauksth Ali Nabisab Nadaf v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shauksth Ali Nabisab Nadaf 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

K. Lingappa S/O Harijana Hanumanthappa Vs Anirudd Sravan

Riyazasab S/O Maiboobsab Sayyad @ Bandagisayyed Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddarth S/O Madav Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddappa Hanamant Aladakatti, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Leelavathi Vs Smt. Adilakshmi

Javeerdahammad B. Sunkad Vs Govind S/O Yankappa Vaddar