Justice M.G. Uma dismissed a bail petition in a case involving sexual assault and intimidation of a minor. The court held that the serious allegations against the accused, supported by medical evidence and victim statement, barred bail at this stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1186 OF 2020
BETWEEN :
Mohammed Ali Akbar @ Ali Umar, S/o Hasab Mohammed, Aged about 23 years, Residing at No.10, 1st Floor, Abbigere Main Road, Kammagondanahalli, Jalahalli West, Bengaluru-560 015.
…Petitioner
(By Sri. Basavaraju Belavangala, Advocate)
AND :
State of Karnataka By Yashwanthpura Police Station, Represented by SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560 001.
… Respondent (By Sri. K.S. Abhijith, HCGP)
2
This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.p.c praying this court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the Cr.No.1/2019 of yeshwanthpura Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 376, 506 of IPC and Section 4 and 6 of POSCO Act, 2012.
This criminal petition coming on for Orders , this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.1/2019 of Yeshwanthapura Police Station on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant registered for the offence punishable under Section 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
informant lodged the first information against the accused on 02.01.2019 stating that the accused is known to her and used to visit her house very frequently. The victim is her daughter aged about 14
3
years, studying in 10th standard. It is stated that since one year, the accused was inducing the minor girl and developed intimacy with her. He took photographs with the victim girl and was threatening to upload the same in social media such as Facebook and YouTube. It is stated that during April, 2018, when the victim was alone in her house, the accused committed sexual assault and criminally intimidated her not to reveal the fact to anybody else and threatened with dire consequences of uploading her nude photographs in social media. Therefore, the informant was hesitant to file the complaint. Finally, she filed the first information requesting the police to register the case and to initiate legal action against the accused. Accordingly, the police registered the case and took up investigation. It is stated that now the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is
4
also filed. It is also stated that after framing charges, informant is examined as PW.1.
Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.S. Abhijith, learned Counsel for the respondent -State. Perused the materials placed on record.
submitted that the petitioner is aged about 26 years. He is the sole earning member in the family. There is no material on record to substantiate the allegation that photos were uploaded on Facebook or YouTube. He is innocent and has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. There is delay in lodging the first information and the inordinate delay has not been explained. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. The petitioner is having old aged
5
parents who are sufferring from several age related ailments. Under such circumstances, the detention of the petitioner in custody is not at all required. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title of the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
6
victim is yet to be examined. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”
My answer to the above point is in the ‘Negative’
for the following:
R E A S O N S
is of serious nature. There are specific allegations made against the petitioner-accused for having committed the serious offence. Even though the
7
learned counsel for the petitioner dispute the age of the victim and the commission of the offence by the petitioner, it is a matter of trial which has already begun before the trial Court. PW-1 fully supported the case of the prosecution. Even the medical report supports the contention of the prosecution. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail at his stage. Accordingly, petition is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
ag
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?
Whether the serious nature of the allegations and the stage of trial justify denial of bail?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohammed Ali Akbar @ Ali Umar
State of Karnataka
M.G. Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
