Allowed

Afreed @ Bablu S/O Mehabubali Garag v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2021CRL.P/100060/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a bail petition filed by an accused under Section 439 CrPC in a rape and POCSO case. Despite awaiting DNA results, the court imposed stringent conditions including a personal bond, prohibition on tampering with witnesses, and regular court appearances to release the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner granted bail subject to executing a bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties, refraining from tampering with witnesses, and not committing similar offences.

Afreed @ Bablu S/O Mehabubali Garag Vs the… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18^th DAY OF JANUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100060/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

AFREED @ BABLU S/O MEHABUBALI GARAG AGE 18 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O NEAR ISMAIL ADDE, LAXMISINGANAKERI, DHARWAD, 580 001 NOW HE IS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY.

¶8

.. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. T.R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD VIDYAGIRI P.S., REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH DHARWAD. 580 001

¶12

.. RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI RAMESH B.CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO RELEASE HIM ON BAIL IN SPL.SC. NO.23/2020 ARISING OUT OF DHARWAD VIDYAGIRI CRIME NO.48/2020 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376 IPC AND SECTION 4 AND 6 OF THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF

¶15

¶16

THE HON’BLE II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS SPECIAL JUDGE, DHARWAD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶17

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of regular bail in Crime No.48/2020 registered by the Vidyagiri Police, Dharwad, for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that, a complaint is filed by one Smt Parveen-mother of the victim before the police on 03.07.2020 alleging that her daughter was in the house and she was not feeling well due to epilepsy and when she was taken to the hospital, on examination, it was found that her daughter was eight months pregnant. Thereafter, a complaint came to be lodged, which came to be registered against unknown person. During the investigation, the police arrested the accused and after investigation, charge sheet was filed. The petitioner approached

¶21

¶22

the Sessions Judge for grant of bail which came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the case. Even if taking into consideration the FIR, complaint and 164 statement of the victim, the name of the accused is not at all mentioned by the victim or the mother of the victim. But he has been arrested only on the basis of the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer in the hospital on 05.07.2020. Even the FSL report is not received to show who is the cause for the pregnancy of the victim. He is ready to abide any conditions. Hence, prayed for granting bail.

¶24

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objected to the petition and strenuously contended that the police arrested the petitioner and incriminating evidence were collected; that a baby was born to the victim which later died. The police have taken the blood samples of the accused as well as the victim and of the child for DNA test and that the report will be received in the month July 2021. There is clear evidence of naming the

¶25

¶26

accused by the victim herself. The victim referred the name of the accused as ‘he’ and later she has given his name. Subsequently, panchanama was prepared by the police which clearly reveals the act of the accused for having committed rape. Therefore, prayed for rejecting the bail petition.

¶27

Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel on both sides and on perusal of the records, especially the complaint and 164 statement, the complainant has not stated the name of the accused and it reveals that somebody had caused sexual intercourse with the victim. Even in 164 statement, the victim has not stated the name of the person, who sexually assaulted her. Though the statement dated 05.07.2020 said to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer in the KIMS Hospital, it does not reveal the name of the doctor in whose presence the statement was recorded except the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the name of the accused is no where found in any material. Even as per the contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader, the DNA report is awaited and the time slot given is in the month of July 2021, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be presumed

¶28

¶29

that the accused is the father of the child born to the victim which later died. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, by imposing certain stringent condition, if the petitioner is granted bail, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case.

¶30

Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶31

The Criminal petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to release the petitioner on bail in Crime No.48/2020 registered by the Dharwad Vidyagiri Police, subject to the following conditions:

¶32

i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶33

ii. The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witness directly or indirectly.

¶34

iii. The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offence.

¶35

iv. The petitioner shall appear before the Court regularly without causing any delay.

¶36

¶37

v. If the petitioner violates any of the conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

kmv

Afreed @ Bablu S/O Mehabubali Garag v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afreed @ Bablu S/O Mehabubali Garag 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

Ravi @ Ravichandra Poojari Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Gagan @ Gagan Reddy Vs the State

T.N. Pavan Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Gurayya Hemayya Kadayyanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Suresh S/O. Huchappa Chalavannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Husensab S/O Mardanasab Balannavar Vs the State of Karnataka