Allowed

Jahangeer S/O Imamsab Mulla v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2021CRL.P/101208/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail in a case involving sexual offences wherein the accused had been in custody for over a year and was deemed no longer required for investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding witness tampering and jurisdiction.

Jahangeer S/O Imamsab Mulla Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101208/2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

JAHANGEER S/O IMAMSAB MULLA AGE:34 YEARS, OCCUP: DRIVER R/O: KOTUR VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VASANT G. HOLEYANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD P.S.I. KITTUR POLICE STATION KITTUR TQ KITTUR

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY MS. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON BAIL IN KITTUR POLICE STATION CRIME NO.26/2020 NOW CC NO.67/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 376, 376(2)(n), 417 OF IPC WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, KITTUR.

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in Crime No.26/2020 registered by the Nandgad Police and presently transferred to Kittur Police and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 417 of IPC.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that, on the complaint of the prosecutrix , the Nandagad police registered a case for the offences under Sections 376 and 420 of the IPC on 29.01.2020. Later the case was transferred to Kittur Police Station on 30.01.2020. It is alleged by the complainant that she is having six children and her husband was dead. She was residing in Ukarkhod village and was running a poultry farm and doing agriculture in a land obtained from one Md. Yaasin. It is alleged that, on 06.04.2019, when she wanted to go to Kittur, since no buses were available, she boarded the truck belonging to the accused and thereafter they become friends. They fell in love with each other

¶20

¶21

and the accused also used to visit to her house and had intercourse with her by giving false promise of marrying her. Thereafter she became pregnant and when she asked him to marry her, she came to know that the accused was already married and divorced another wife and living with the third wife. Therefore, the complaint came to be filed. The police after investigation filed the charge sheet. The petitioner approached the Sessions Judge for grant of bail, which came to be rejected. Hence he is before this Court.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences. He has been falsely implicated in the case. There is ten months delay in lodging the complaint and the accused, though ready to marry the complainant, she has refused to come and join him. He is in custody from more than one year and ready to abide by any conditions. Hence prayed for grant of bail.

¶23

Per contra, learned HCGP objected to the bail petition and contended that the petitioner is a married woman. In spite of having wife, the accused induced the complainant and on the false promise of marrying her, had sexual intercourse with her. There is

¶24

¶25

sufficient material placed on record to show that the petitioner has committed the offence. Hence he prayed for rejection of bail petition.

¶26

Upon considering the arguments of both the counsel and on perusal of the records, it is not in dispute that the victim was aged about 37 years and having six children. She fell in love with the accused and the accused said to be stayed with her for two months in her house. During that time, they had intercourse and she become pregnant. The complaint came to be filed only when the marriage attempts failed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the age of the victim and the accused, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, since the accused is in custody from more than one year and his presence is no more required for the purpose of any investigation, if the petitioner is released on bail by imposing any stringent conditions, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution.

¶27

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶28

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Petition is allowed . The petitioner/accused is directed to be released on bail in Crime No.26/2020 of Kittur Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 417 of the IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶31

i. He 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 committal Court/trial Court.

¶32

ii. He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly in any manner.

¶33

iii. He shall not involve in similar offences.

¶34

iv. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.

¶35

v. He shall attend the Court regularly on all the dates of hearing, without causing any delay.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

gab

Jahangeer S/O Imamsab Mulla v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jahangeer S/O Imamsab Mulla 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

Satish S/O Gurunath Alias Gurappa Chalawadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Harapal Singh S/O Prem Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

D. Prabhakaran S/O. Dayalan Vs State of Karnataka

Ramadas Vithoba Anvekar Vs Mohan Vasanth Raikar S/O Vasant M.Raikar

Sabiya W/O Umar Farooq Aga Vs Umar Farooq @ (Zuheb) S/O Mushtaq Ahmed Aga

N. Gayathri D/O.B.K.Narashime Goweda Vs the State of Karnataka