Allowed

Ashman @ Jayaram Shetty v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2021CRL.P/201/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Criminal Bench allowed bail to a Bangladeshi national accused of trafficking minor girls. The Court imposed bail conditions including detention in a detention center till deportation despite the investigation being complete.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including detention in a detention centre till trial and deportation.

Ashman @ Jayaram Shetty Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201/2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

Ashman @ Jayaram Shetty, W/o Abubakar, Aged about 54 years, R/at: Anjinappa Building, Mallenahalli Village, Bidarguppe Post, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru (R) -562 106.

¶9

…Petitioner (By Sri.M.Krishnegowda, Advocate for Smt shivamma.D, Advocate)

¶10

AND :

¶11

State of Karnataka Reptd by Attibele P S High Court Govt pleader, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore 560 001.

¶12

… Respondent

¶13

(By Sri.K.S. Abhijit, Advocate)

¶14

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No.327/2019 (S.C.No.5038/2020) Registered by Attibele Police Station, Bengaluru District for the offence P/U/S 366(A), 370, 212 of IPC and Section 14(a)(b) of Foreigners Act.

¶15

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court

¶19

seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.327/2019 of Attibele Police Station, now pending in S.C.No.5038/2020 before III Additional District and Sessions at Anekal, registered for the offences punishable under Section 14(a) (b) of Foreigners Act and Sections 212, 366(A) and 370 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Seema Diwan.

¶20

Heard Sri M. Krishnegowda, Advocate for Smt.Shivamma.D, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.S. Abhijith, learned Counsel for the respondent - State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1. She has not committed any offences as alleged. She has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. She was apprehended on 23.10.2019 and since then she is

¶22

¶23

in judicial custody. The main allegations is against accused No.2 and others. Accused Nos.3, 7 and 9 are already enlarged on bail. Accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 are absconding. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. The petitioner is not required to be detained in custody for any reasons, except to ensure her presence before the Trial Court. 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.

¶24

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that this petitioner is a Bangla National, who is found in Mallenahalli, Attibella Hobli, Anekal Taluk, without any passport or permit. She has played a major role in commission of the offence, under various provisions, as stated above. Accused No.2 has illegally trafficked the victim girls and all other accused joined hands with him in the commission of offence. Since, the

¶25

¶26

petitioner is also a foreign national without any visa or permit, she is required to be deported after completion of the trial. Even if the petitioner is to be enlarged on bail, she may be ordered to be detained in detention centre till completion of the trial and deportation. Accordingly, he prays for passing of the appropriate orders.

¶27

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶28

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶29

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶30

My answer to the above point is in the ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶31

R E A S O N S

¶32

On perusal of the materials placed on record, it is seen that accused No.2 is the son of the present petitioner, who trafficked the minor girls to India and accused No.1 has provided shelter. It is stated that all accused Nos.1 to

¶33

¶34

9 are Bangla Nationals, illegally migrated to India and stayed without any visa or passport. Since the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required to be detained in custody. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner is a Bangla National, who has illegally migrated to India has to be deported after completion of the trial, reasonable conditions may have to be imposed while enlarging the petitioner on bail. Hence, I answer the above point in ‘Affirmative’ and proceed to pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The petition is allowed.

¶37

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.327/2019 of Attibele Police Station, now pending in S.C.No.5038/2020 before III Additional District and Sessions at Anekal, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶38

¶39

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

d). The petitioner shall be detained in detention center till conclusion of the trial and deportation.

¶43

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶44

HB/-

Ashman @ Jayaram Shetty v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashman @ Jayaram Shetty v. 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

Yashaswini S T Vs the State of Karnataka

Sanjeev Paul Vs the State of Karnataka

Anees Pasha @ Anees Vs State of Karnataka

Apeksha Ashok Naik Vs State of Karnataka

Santhosh K Vs State of Karnataka

Miss. Ramla Shedfa Nancy Vs State by Narcotics Control Bureau