Allowed

Abdul Razak v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2020CRL.P/200664/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail petition filed by an accused in a rape and dowry-related case. Despite a medical report indicating no recent sexual intercourse, the Court held that pretrial detention would be unfair and granted bail subject to strict conditions to ensure the accused's presence and prevent witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was enlarged on bail on security of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions not to commit offences or tamper with witnesses.

Abdul Razak Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.200664/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Abdul Razak S/o Mahammed Sab Aged about 30 Years Occ: Car Driver R/o Rangampeth Tq. Shorapur Dist. Yadgiri

¶9

… Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri S.S. Aspalli, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The State of Karnataka Through Yadgiri Women Police Station Represented by Addl. SPP High Court of Karnataka Kalaburagi Bench

¶13

… Respondent

¶14

(By Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, HCGP)

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to allow the bail petition filed by the

¶16

¶17

petitioner in Crime No.7/2020 (CC No.74/2020) under Sections 417, 376 (2) (n), 504, 506 R/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 of DP Act, of Yadgiri Women Police Station, pending before the Sessions Judge, Yadgiri and release the petitioner on bail.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Petitioner – accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), in Crime No.7/2020 of Yadgir Women Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 376 (2), (f) and (n), 504, 506 R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, referred to as ‘DP Act’), on the basis of first information lodged by the victim against accused Nos.1 to 4.

¶21

¶22

2. Brief facts of the case are that, engagement

¶23

for the marriage of victim along with accused No.1 was performed on 05.05.2019 and it was agreed between both the families that 2 ½ Tolas of gold and Rs.25,000/- in cash along with cloths are to be given to accused No.1 as dowry. Subsequent to the engagement, accused No.1 taking advantage of the situation was forcing the victim to have sex with him and he committed forcible sexual assault on 15.05.2019 and again on 02.02.2020. In the meantime, on 20.05.2019, the victim was taken by accused No.1 to Bangalore, where they stayed for about a week. Even though, the victim was opposing the act of accused No.1, he was not hearing her words and forcing her to have sex with him. It is stated that when the accused committed the offence on 02.02.2020 in the house of the victim herself, a panchayat was convened on 03.02.2020 to fix the date of marriage between the two. But in the said panchayat, accused Nos.2 to 4 who are parents and brother of the accused No.1 insisted for payment of dowry or else, they refuse to arrange the

¶24

¶25

marriage between the victim and accuse No.1. Therefore, the victim lodged first information against all the accused for the above said offences.

¶26

Heard Sri S.S. Aspalli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. Perused the materials on record.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶28

that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1. Even though the prosecution contended that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 376 (f) (n) of IPC, there are no materials to substantiate such contention. He submitted that according to the first information, the incident had taken place in victim’s house, where she resides with her family members. As per the spot sketch, the house is very small, having only one room. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that accused No.1 committed the offences against the will and wish of the informant. He also contended that even thought the

¶29

¶30

informant contended that accused No.1 committed rape on 02.02.2020, the first information was came to be lodged on 02.03.2020. This inordinate delay in lodging the complaint is not at all explained. He further submits that the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is also recorded by the learned Magistrate, wherein the victim has not alleged commission of the offence under Section 376 of IPC by accused No.1. Further he submits that accused Nos.2 to 4 are already enlarged on bail. The investigation is completed and the chargesheet is also filed. This petitioner was apprehended on 01.04.2020 and since then, he is in judicial custody. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and he is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that will be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶31

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the present petitioner for

¶32

¶33

having committed the offences. Taking advantage of the engagement with the victim, he had committed repeated sexual assault on her. She was hardly 19 years at the time of commission of offences. Accused No.1 along with other accused were insisting for dowry and is not willing to marry the victim girl. In the meantime, he committed sexual assault against her will and wish. The medical records disclose that hymen was torn. The victim was subject to examination on 02.03.2020 when the incident was taken place on 02.02.2020. Therefore, the doctor who examined the victim opined that there are no evidence of sexual intercourse. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. also discloses the commission of offences by accused No.1. The chargesheet filed by the investigating officer shows strong prima facie material against the accused and therefore he is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶34

6. Considered the materials on record in view of

¶35

the rival contentions. There are serious allegations made

¶36

¶37

against accused No.1 for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 417, 376 (2), 376 (n), 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of DP Act. At this stage, it cannot be said that accused No.1 is innocent and has not committed any offences. The medical records disclose that hymen was torn, even though it suggests no external injuries and absence of evidence of recent sexual intercourse. The fact remains that the victim was subjected to examination after about a month. However, the victim is said to be aged 19 years and the offence in question is alleged to have been committed in the house of the victim. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the present petitioner is required for any other purpose other than to ensure his presence before the trial Court during trial. Under such circumstances, the detention of the petitioner in custody may amount to pretrial punishment. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petition may be allowed subject to conditions which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader. Hence, the following:

¶38

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petition is allowed.

¶41

Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶42

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶43

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶44

c). Petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

RSP

Abdul Razak v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Razak 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

Sunil Vs State of Karnataka

Shivasharanappa and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka

Rahul S/O Ninganna Pujari Vs the State

Azhiev Sezdbek Vs the State

Satish Vs the State of Karnataka

Kalyez Chingiz S/O Bakytbek Vs the State of Karnataka