Allowed

Syed Siddiq H v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2022CRL.P/5738/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving offences under Sections 376, 307, and others IPC. The court imposed personal bond and conditions to prevent tampering with witnesses and ensure appearance in court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to execution of personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with sureties and compliance with court conditions.

Syed Siddiq H Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5738/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SYED SIDDIQ H., AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O. SYED HAMEED R/AT NO.945, 3^RD CROSS GOVINDAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU -560 045.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI A.S.PONNANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W. SRI ARNAV A. BAGALWADI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KADUGONDANAHALLI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP OFFICE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.154/2022 OF KADUGONDANA HALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 307, 323, 354, 376, 406, 420, 504, 506 R/W. 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 66-E OF I.T ACT.

¶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

¶20

regular bail of the petitioner/accused in Crime No.154/2022 of Kadudgondana Halli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 307, 354, 323, 406, 420, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act.

¶21

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

¶22

The Factual matrix of the case of the prosecutition is that the complainant came to Bengaluru for training and coaching and had joined this petitioner for coaching since she is a body builder and prior to that, both of them got acquainted with each other through Instagram and thereafter, intimacy has developed between them and this petitioner also promised that, within few months, he will train her to participate in Miss

¶23

¶24

Universe Competition at Pune. After the training, she got the medal in NCP Competition and thereafter, subsequently also, she participated in other two competition and got third place in one event and fourth place in another event. It is also an allegation that she was subjected to periodical sexual act by this petitioner and ultimately on 28.02.2022, the petitioner came along with his co-brothers and also a priest and gave six grams of gold chain as a dower for the said marriage and contract was also signed by her along with witness and after signing the marriage certificate, he had informed that there is a big competition by NCP Event which is to be held in Bengaluru and she should prepare for the said event as both of them are married and going to secure the job and also during training, he had been injecting her by pgcl 10 mcg. three times a day, Thyro 3, Anav, Rexobol, Astralean, HG (hormone growth substance) by giving heavy dose and supplements and within 18 days, she had developed her body and made her to participate in NCP Event. Thereafter, when though made an application for registration of marriage on 04.04.2022 before the Sub-Registrar at Nagawara, Bengaluru, after filing an application, the first wife of this petitioner called

¶25

¶26

and started abusing the complainant in filthy language and threatened her life and this petitioner also started assaulting her. Based on these allegations, case has been registered in Crime No.154/2022 for the offence under Sections 376, 307, 354, 323, 406, 420, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 66(E) of the I.T. Act.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the complainant came in contact to this petitioner through Instagram and contacted this petitioner to train her and she was staying in a house and subsequently, she was trained and during the training, intimacy has developed between them and both of them with consent had sexual intercourse several times. Hence, offence under Section 376 of IPC does not attract. The counsel also would submit that there was no promise of marriage earlier. However, in the complaint itself stated that both of them got married on 28.02.2022 and also made an application for registration. At that time, the first wife of this petitioner raised an issue and hence, the same was not registered. Therefore, the learned counsel would vehemently

¶28

¶29

contend that offence under Section 376 of IPC does not attract and even the other offence under Section 420 of IPC. Since the petitioner is in custody from 29.04.2022, there is no need of further custodial investigation and hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶30

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State would submit that an allegation is made that, even prior to marriage, she was subjected to sexual act and thereafter, both of them got married and in 164 statement also, the victim has reiterated that there was a marriage between them and he not only committed fraud but, also abused in filthy language and assaulted her. Hence, there is a prima facie case against the petitioner herein.

¶31

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, the complaint given by the complainant categorically says that she came in contact with this petitioner for training and she came to Bengaluru and took training with this petitioner and she has also participated in several competitions. When the complaint itself discloses that

¶32

¶33

there was a marriage between the complainant and this petitioner on 28.02.2022 in the presence of the co-brothers of this petitioner and also in the presence of a priest and accepted a dower of six grams gold chain for the said marriage and also signed the contract as per Muslim Personal Law and marriage certificate was also obtained and thereafter, made an attempt to register the marriage, the registration was also not effected. But, the victim in 164 statement says that even the marriage was also registered and endorsement was given.

¶34

Having taken note of these aspects into

¶35

consideration, there is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation with regard to obtaining her consent on the guise of marriage played fraud. Further, both of them are body builders and this petitioner is also a trainer and though they developed intimacy, the allegation in the complaint is clear that 15 to 20 times, both of them had sexual intercourse. But, while giving complaint, the word used is ‘raped her for 15 to 20 times for 10 days’. Taking note of such averment in the complaint and also no allegation of fraud that

¶36

¶37

obtained consent by misconception and apart from that, both of them are married and made an attempt to even register the marriage, I am of the opinion that, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:-

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in Crime No.154/2022 of Kadugondana Halli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 307, 354, 323, 406, 420, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, subject to the following conditions:

¶40

(i) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶41

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶42

¶43

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

¶44

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Syed Siddiq H v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Siddiq H v. the 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

Prashantha. S. N. Vs State of Karnataka

Nagarjuna G S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Santosh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.P.Madhavaraju Vs the State by East Zone Women Police Station

Smt. Umadevi Vs the State of Karnataka

Prabhu Vs State of Karnataka