Allowed

Mr Abrar Yusuf Pandrowala v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2020CRL.P/2399/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court restrained the criminal petition seeking anticipatory bail for offences including rape and cyber crimes. The court awarded bail despite some inconsistencies in the complaint, subject to strict conditions regarding cooperation and non-interaction with the complainant.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.44/2020, subject to executing a bond and complying with conditions regarding appearance, cooperation, and non-contact with th

Mr Abrar Yusuf Pandrowala Vs the State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF JUNE 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2399 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. ABRAR YUSUF PANDROWALA S/O SHRI MOHD.YUSUF PANDROWALA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, NO.7, GROUND FLOOR, ACHYTHARAYA MODALIYAR ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU-560005. ALTERNATIVE AT LEMORE APARTMENT FLAT NO.302, 15^TH ROAD, BANDRA WEST MUMBAI-50.

¶9

...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHYAM SUNDAR M.S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PULKESHI NAGAR PS, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. THEJESH P., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)

¶12

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.44/2020 OF PULAKESHINAGAR P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 354D, 354B, 506, 376, 447, 354 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTION 66C AND SECTION 66E OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This petition is under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.44/2020 registered by the respondent – Police for the offences punishable under Sections 354D, 354B, 506, 376, 447 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66C and 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶17

The statement of the complainant before the Police is that the accused is a resident of Bandra, Mumbai and was in a live in relationship with the complainant since last two months. Due to his harassment, the complainant is said to have shifted to Bengaluru and stopped all contact

¶18

¶19

with him. She claimed that she was transferred to Bengaluru from Mumbai on 28.12.2019 and was employed in a Company at Bengaluru. She alleged that on 13.02.2020 at around 9 p.m., the accused barged into her house, forcibly snatched her personal phone and when she resisted, she was beaten brutally and she was forced to remove her clothes and when she screamed for help, he forcibly closed her mouth and attempted to indulge in an intercourse and thereafter discharged on her face. She claimed that her cry for help solicited presence of the landlord who was staying on the second floor of the same building. She alleged that the accused convinced the landlord that the complainant was doing some wrong and despite her pleas, the landlord did not help her. She alleged that the accused misused her personal data and leaked her private pictures, chats and personal information to various people. The complainant further alleged that the accused also transferred a sum of Rs.61,000/- from her bank account to the account of the accused through mobile banking app. She alleged that on 14.02.2020, she

¶20

¶21

complained to the Police who received her complaint and also made her to speak to the accused. Thereafter, she seemed to have lodged a complaint on 21.02.2020 and the Police have registered Crime No.44/2020 for the offences mentioned supra.

¶22

The accused would contend that he was in a relationship with the complainant and that he was innocent of the allegations made against him. He would further contend that assuming the statements made by the complainant before the Police to be true yet an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. The accused undertakes to appear before the Investigating Officer on every day until the investigation is completed and also would undertake to cooperate with the investigation of the crime.

¶23

It is seen from the complaint that the alleged offence took place on 13.02.2020 and though the complainant claimed that she had lodged a complaint on 14.02.2020, the complaint actually was filed on

¶24

¶25

21.02.2020 as is evident from the records. The complainant has failed to explain the delay in lodging the complaint. The complainant alleged that the accused attempted to have sexual intercourse with her. The medical records furnished by the High Court Government Pleader did not disclose any recent incident of sexual intercourse. It also did not disclose any seminal stain. The petitioner placed on record WhatsApp chat between the petitioner and the complainant and a few photographs which indicate the intimate relationship. However, this in itself cannot be set up as a defense, against a woman who claims to have cut off all relationship with the petitioner.

¶26

In that view of the matter, the accused is

¶27

entitled to anticipatory bail subject however to the conditions to be imposed by this Court.

¶28

Hence, this Petition is allowed. The petitioner

¶29

shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.44/2020 registered by Pulakeshinagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, pending trial before the I Additional Chief

¶30

¶31

Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, subject to the following conditions:

¶32

The petitioner – accused shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within seven days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶33

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer every day between 10:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. until conclusion of investigation and shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in concluding the investigation.

¶34

The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses or destroy any prosecution material.

¶35

The petitioner shall not intimidate or confront or threaten the complainant.

¶36

¶37

The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court until conclusion of the investigation.

¶38

In view of disposal of this petition, I.A. No.1/2020

¶39

for interim bail does not survive for consideration and the

¶40

same stands rejected .

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

sma

Mr Abrar Yusuf Pandrowala v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Abrar Yusuf Pandrowala 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

Pramod T R Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Yashwanth Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Authorised Officer, Canara Bank

B G Lingesh Vs the Chief Secretary

Prakash Vs the State

A Narayana S/O Annu Shettigara Vs Gulabi v Rai (Since Dead)

Smt Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka