Allowed

Ahmed Pasha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2021CRL.P/5599/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that petitioner accused of sexual assault is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. subject to conditions, noting absence of need for further investigation and no criminal antecedents, despite victim's statement supporting prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions not to commit offences, threaten witnesses, or abscond.

Ahmed Pasha Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5599 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

AHMED PASHA S/O MOHAMMED MAULANA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT (AS PER REMAND APPLICATION) SHANBONGNAHALLI VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU.

¶9

ALSO AS PER FIR BILWARDAHALI JIGANI HOBLI BENGALURU DIST, KARNATAKA.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND :

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER BANNERGHATTA POLICE STATION BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

… RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI: H.R. SHOWRI, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO. 75/2021 OF BANNERGHATTA P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376(1), 376(2) (N), 376B, 376(2) OF IPC AND SECTION 25 OF ARMS ACT.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.75/2021 of Bannerghatta Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(n), 376(B), 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of first information lodged by the informant, Yasmin Khan.

¶21

Heard Sri. Sirajuddin Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. H.R. Showri, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1. He is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 16.06.2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. The complainant is aged 28 years. She is married and having two children. It is alleged that

¶23

¶24

the petitioner had called the victim to his place and committed sexual assault by threatening her showing the gun. In fact, the complainant herself went to the place of petitioner and at the most, it may be a consensual sexual relationship. Even though the incident is said to have been taken place on 14.06.2021, FIR came to be registered on 16.06.2021. There is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint, which itself goes to show the ingenious motive for the complainant to lodge a complaint. Accused No.2, against whom similar allegations are made, is already enlarged on bail. The investigation is almost completed, however, charge sheet is yet to be filed. The petitioner is not required for further investigation and he has no criminal antecedents. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to 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.

¶25

¶26

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government

¶27

Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. The victim herself lodged the first information against the accused making specific allegations. She has specifically stated regarding the sexual assault committed by the petitioner. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is also recorded, wherein she has supported the case of prosecution. The investigation is still at the initial stage. Even though accused No.2 is already enlarged on bail, there is no allegation against him regarding commission of sexual assault or threatening to the victim. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to seek parity with that of accused No.2. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶28

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶29

¶30

“Whether the petitioner is

¶31

entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶32

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

¶33

R E A S O N S

¶34

The materials on record disclose that serious

¶35

allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences as stated above. It is specifically stated by the victim that she was made to visit the house of the petitioner, wherein, he committed sexual assault on her. However, no such allegations are made against accused No.2. It is stated that the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is also recorded, wherein, she has fully supported the case of prosecution. Thus the materials, prima facie, discloses that the petitioner committed the offences as alleged by the victim. At this stage, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter.

¶36

¶37

During the course of arguments, learned

¶38

counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the application filed under Section 301 Cr.P.C., filed by the victim before the learned Magistrate, wherein, she has stated that she was in fact induced by others to file the said complaint. However, later the said application came to be not pressed. It is stated that the said application is accompanied by the affidavit sworn by the victim herself. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drew my attention to various whats app chats said to have been held by the victim with the petitioner to contend that the victim herself forced the petitioner to indulge in chatting by sending her photos and videos etc. However, it is a matter for investigation by the Investigating Officer to find out whether Section 376 of IPC is attracted or not. At this stage, it cannot be said that the complaint is motivated and that there is no substance in the same. However, it is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is required for further investigation or that he is having any criminal antecedents. Therefore, detention of the

¶39

¶40

petitioner in custody would amount to infringement of his right to life and liberty. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶41

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶42

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petition is allowed.

¶45

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in

¶46

Crime No.75/2021 of Bannerghatta Police Station, Bengaluru, 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:

¶47

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶48

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

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.

¶52

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

BMC

Ahmed Pasha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahmed Pasha 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

Syed Suhail @ Suhail @ Papaya Vs State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Sharukh Khan

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Umesha

Nikhil D L Vs State of Karnataka by

Numan Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Feeroz Khan Vs State of Karnataka by