Dismissed

Shaheen Taj @ Shaheen Taj Sultan v. State by Govindapura Police

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2022CRL.P/4906/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding offences of trafficking and prostitution of a minor. The Court held that considering the serious allegations and ongoing investigation, the petitioner is not a fit case for bail at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition rejected; liberty reserved to approach after filing of charge-sheet.

Shaheen Taj @ Shaheen Taj Sultan Vs State by… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4906/2022

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SHAHEEN TAJ @ SHAHEEN TAJ SULTAN W/O S A SULTAN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O NO, 48, KNO1559/1/301 6^TH CROSS, RASHAD NAGAR NEAR RISING STAR SCHOOL BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU - 560005

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE BY GOVINDAPURA POLICE REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560001

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR STATE; SRI ZAMEER PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.37/2022 OF GOVINDAPURA P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.370, 372, 506 OF IPC AND ETC.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.37/2022 of Govindapura Police Station, Bengaluru City for the Offences punishable under Sections 370, 372, 506 of IPC.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant.

¶21

The factual matrix of the case is that the daughter who is the complainant had lodged the complaint against her mother i.e., the petitioner herein wherein an allegation is made that when she was 14 years old in the year 2008, her mother asked her to accompany with a person and be kind to him and also it is an allegation that the said person came and took the complainant to unknown place and subjected her for sexual act

¶22

and after three years, again, the complainant was sent to Pune and there also she was subjected for sexual act for ten days and

¶23

¶24

she was brought back to the home and inspite of resistance from

¶25

the complainant, again she was sent to Mumbai in the year 2013-2014, there the police have conducted the raid and a case was registered against the petitioner and the complainant was sent to Vidyaranya Home NGO Institution. It is also an allegation that she had saved some money and in the said money, a site was purchased in the name of the petitioner and a house was also constructed there and the petitioner also executed a gift deed in favour of the complainant but the house was not given to the complainant instead of that, she used to collect the rent amount and again by force, the complainant was subjected for prostitution if she want the said house and the petitioner is having an habit of subjecting her for prostitution and hence, the complaint is filed and the case has been registered for the aforesaid offences and the matter is under investigation.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the present complaint is after thought complaint when civil dispute arises between the parties and the counsel brought to the notice of this Court that earlier, a

¶27

¶28

complaint was given to the police making an allegation against this petitioner and case was not registered hence, the complaint was filed under PCR and the same is numbered as PCR No. 54951/2021 and the matter was referred for investigation and consequently, FIR was registered in Cr.No.147/2021. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court to paragraphs 3 to 7 of PCR and referring the said paragraphs, the counsel submits that there is no allegation of subjecting her for women trafficking and only the offences punishable under Section 379, 420, 506, 447 read with Section 34 of IPC are invoked in the private complaint, hence, it is clear that only an after thought, the present complaint is filed. The counsel also submits that when there is no allegation prior to filing of this complaint with regard to subjecting her for women trafficking and this petitioner is in custody from 07.04.2022 hence, there is no need of further custodial trial and prayed to allow the petition.

¶29

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that, when the victim girl was 14 years old, she was subjected to prostitution by the petitioner and when the raid was conducted,

¶30

¶31

the victim was apprehended and Mumbai Court, while passing a final order, in paragraph 5 observed that the victim is from Bengaluru and the victim was previously given in custody of her parents. It is also mentioned that, as per Probation Officer’s report, victim again came to Mumbai and immediately, the pimp called her saying that if she wants money offered her prostitution. It shows that as soon as victim left her native place and came to Mumbai she is induced to do business of prostitution. On inquiry victim stated that she is not interested in doing business of prostitution in future. The above referred circumstances show that if she is again given in the custody of her alleged mother, people will again induce her to enter in this business. Hence, it appears that victim is in need of care and protection, so that she is not again involved in the business of prostitution and hence, to be given in custody of an institution for her rehabilitation and vocational training.

¶32

The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State referring this order passed by the Mumbai Court submits that, it is clear that the victim was subjected to prostitution at the hands of the mother repeatedly and hence,

¶33

¶34

the Court comes to the conclusion that the complainant is not safe at the hands of this petitioner i.e., the mother. Hence, the Mumbai Court ordered for rehabilitation and vocational training.

¶35

The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant also reiterated paragraph No.5 of the order passed by the Mumbai Court and also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of JAGJEET SINGH & ORS. VS. ASHISH MISHRA @ MONU & ANR. reported in 2002 Live Law (SC) 376 wherein, the Apex Court has taken note of the defence of the victim as amended in Criminal Procedure Code and the same is discussed in paragraph No.24 of the judgment. In paragraph No.25, the Apex Court, taking note of the serious and heinous offence and referring the special enactment like Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, observed that there is a legal obligation to hear the victim at the time of granting bail. Instead, what must be taken note of is that; First, the Indian jurisprudence is constantly evolving, whereby, the right of victims to be heard, especially in cases involving heinous crimes, is increasingly being acknowledged; Second, where the victims themselves have

¶36

¶37

come forward to participate in a criminal proceeding, they must be accorded with an opportunity of a fair and effective hearing. If the right to file an appeal against acquittal, is not accompanied with the right to be heard at the time of deciding a bail application, the same may result in grave miscarriage of justice. Victims certainly cannot be expected to be sitting on the fence and watching the proceedings from afar, especially when they may have legitimate grievances. It is the solemn duty of a Court to deliver justice before the memory of an injustice eclipses.

¶38

Having considered the principles laid down in the

¶39

judgment of the Apex Court which is delivered recently on 18.04.2022, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant is given an audience to submit the case of the defacto complainant. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court dated 16.02.2022 in respect of invoking the offence under Sections 370 and 376 of IPC, wherein also discussed with regard to trafficking a minor tribal girl aged 14 years, noting that it was unfortunate that an innocent girl of tender age was subjected to heinous crimes and was severely abused, exploited and tortured

¶40

¶41

by several people. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 14, wherein also the Delhi High Court has discussed with regard to the offence under Sections 370 and 376 of IPC and observed that the said offences are grave and serious in nature and have adverse social implications and considering the said fact, the petitioner has been charged for trafficking a minor girl which is in itself is heinous offence, the Court rejected the bail petition, even after filing of the charge-sheet.

¶42

The counsel referring these two judgments of the Apex Court as well as the Delhi High Court would contend that when the victim/defacto complainant was aged about 14 years, from that age itself, she was subjected to prostitution by her own mother, who is the petitioner herein. The order passed by the Mumbai Court is very clear that, inspite of the fact that custody was given to the parents earlier, she was again subjected for prostitution. Hence, counsel prays for rejection of bail petition.

¶43

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned

¶44

¶45

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State, the Court has to look into the contents of the complaint while considering the bail petition, since investigation is not yet completed. In the complaint also, she has reiterated that, when she was 14 years old in 2018, she was subjected to women trafficking and she was sent along with unknown person and subjected her for prostitution. In paragraph No.3 of the complaint also, the victim has stated that, she was scared and frustrated and the petitioner herein sent her along with unknown person to unknown place and she was sexually exploited by unknown person and she has also explained that, she was sent to Mumbai and other places like Pune, Rajput etc., and specific allegations are also made that, she was arrested at Mumbai and she was also given to NGO institution for her custody and was referred to rehabilitation. The specific allegation of the victim is that, even after rehabilitation also, the mother forced her to subject herself for prostitution. When such serious allegation is made against the mother and allegation is also made that from the age of 14 years, she was subjected to prostitution and she was also arrested at Mumbai and in the order passed in R.A.No.34/RA/2014, the Mumbai Court in paragraph No.5

¶46

¶47

observed that the custody given to the parents earlier was misused and repeatedly, she was subjected to prostitution. Hence, the victim was referred to rehabilitation centre.

¶48

When such being the material on record, when series

¶49

of allegations subjecting the daughter for prostitution and women trafficking by the mother is made, there is a force in the contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State as well as the defacto complainant that the victim was subjected to prostitution, when she was aged about 14 years and continued the same, even after the alleged reformation also and she was forced to subject herself for sexual act. It has also emerged from the records that the complainant also filed a private complaint before the Court in PCR No.54951/2021, wherein an allegation is made with regard to acquiring the property and construction of property and though executed the gift deed, possession was not given. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, with regard to subjecting the victim for women trafficking, nothing is mentioned in the said complaint and the Court has to take note of the contents of the complaint particularly, when the offences

¶50

¶51

under Sections 379, 420, 447 and 506 read with Section 34 are invoked.

¶52

When such offences are invoked and offence under

¶53

Sections 370 and 372 of IPC are not invoked, the same is not material at the time of considering the bail petition and the Court has to take note of the contents of the complaint, wherein specific allegations are made that when the victim was minor, she was subjected to prostitution at the hands of this petitioner and the matter is under investigation and the investigation is not yet completed, at this juncture, it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶54

13. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶55

following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

The criminal petition is rejected. However, liberty is reserved to approach the Court, after filing of the charge-sheet.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

SN/ST

Shaheen Taj @ Shaheen Taj Sultan v. State by Govindapura Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaheen Taj @ Shaheen Taj Sultan v. State by Govindapura Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Madan Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

Madhu @ Slum @ Manoja Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt M Prabhavathi Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.Sunandamma Vs Smt.Lakshmamma @ Doddalakshmamma

Sri Dilip Kumar S., Vs State of Karnataka

Awez @ Uvez Vs State of Karnataka