Allowed

Feeroz Khan v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2021CRL.P/5663/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition sought anticipatory bail for an accused in a POCSO case alleging kidnapping and sexual assault. The High Court allowed the petition, granting bail conditioned on furnishing security, appearing before the Investigating Officer within 15 days, assisting in DNA collection, and ensuring no witness tampering occurs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail upon arrest; directed to appear before Investigating Officer within 15 days; bail bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties.

Feeroz Khan Vs State of Karnataka by — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5663 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN : FEEROZ KHAN, S/O PYAREJAN, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.127, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, GANGONDANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 039. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.NISAR SAB, ADVOCATE) AND : STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO, CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 039. REP. BY GOVT. PLEADER, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI.H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.260/2020 (SPL.C.C.NO.603/2021) REGISTERED BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363, 344, 376, 376(2)(n) IPC AND SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT.

¶7

¶8

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

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.260/2020 of Chandra Layout Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 63, 344, 376, 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act"), on the basis of first information lodged by the informant Smt.Sarojamma.

¶11

Heard Sri.Nisar Sab, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.H.R.Showri, learned HCGP for the

¶12

respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶13

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the sole accused. He is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. It is stated that the petitioner kidnapped the victim girl and committed sexual assault on her. The victim was aged

¶14

¶15

17 years 7 months at the time of incident. Even according to the case of prosecution, the statement of the victim girl is recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate, wherein, she has specifically stated that she herself insisted the petitioner to take her to Mumbai and accordingly, she went along with him. She never stated that the petitioner has committed sexual assault on her. The petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. Investigation is completed and the chargesheet is already filed. Petitioner is not having criminal antecedent. He is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and he 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 in the interest of justice.

¶16

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. He submits that the victim was minor at the time of incident. She is conceived as a result of the act committed by the petitioner. Petitioner is absconding

¶17

¶18

since the date of registration of the case. DNA sample from the victim girl is collected. Petitioner is not available for investigation nor for collection of DNA sample. Looking into the seriousness of offences, petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he may never turn up before the Investigating Officer or may commit similar offences, threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶19

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

¶20

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for

¶21

grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶22

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

¶23

following:

¶24

R E A S O N S

¶25

The materials placed on record prima facie disclose that, serious allegations are made against petitioner for having committed the offences. Admittedly, victim is

¶26

¶27

minor at the time of incident and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is already recorded. Even though she has not alleged commission of the offence against the petitioner, but it is stated she become pregnant and DNA samples are already collected. Investigation is completed and the chargesheet is already filed and it is not the contention of prosecution that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. However, if DNA sample is to be collected from the petitioner, that can be done by the Investigating Officer with the permission of the learned Magistrate. I do not find any reason to reject the petition. Hence, petitioner may be granted anticipatory 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.

¶28

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶29

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petition is allowed.

¶32

¶33

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.260/2020 of Chandra Layout Police Station.

¶34

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge him on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶35

a. The petitioner shall furnish 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 Investigating Officer;

¶36

b. The petitioner shall not commit similar offences;

¶37

c. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the Court as and when required and assist with the Investigating Officer for collection of DNA samples; and

¶38

d. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶39

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the

¶40

Investigating Officer is at liberty to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by

¶41

¶42

him. On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed to accept the sureties within a reasonable time.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

pgg

Feeroz Khan v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Feeroz Khan v. State of Karnataka by

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

Ahmed Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Numan Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka