Dismissed

Adeebulla Sharief v. State by Kadugondanahalli Police

Karnataka HC16 Aug 2023CRL.A/355/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal arising from rejection of an anticipatory bail petition. The High Court of Karnataka, while dismissing the appeal, held that the prima facie case of forcible sexual intercourse and caste-atrocity established a strong bar to anticipatory bail, especially considering the accused was a proclaimed offender and had fled abroad after promising marriage to the victim.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the order rejecting the anticipatory bail petition was affirmed.

Adeebulla Sharief Vs State by Kadugondanahalli… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:29021 CRL.A No. 355 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 355 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ADEEBULLA SHARIEF S/O NOORULLA SHARIEF AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/A # 221, 9^TH CROSS ANWAR LAYOUT COPY BOARD COLONY ARABIC COLLEGE POST BANGALORE – 560 045.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI MOHAMMED PASHA C, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE BY KADUGONDANAHALLI POLICE REP. BY SPP.

¶14

RAJLAKSHMI D/O VELU AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT #118, 4^TH CROSS GOUTAMNAGAR, SRIRAMPURA BANGALORE – 560 021.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI RAHUL RAI K, HCGP A/W SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP FOR R1 SRI GAURAV S, ADVOCATE FOR R2-ABSENT)

¶17

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS BAIL APPLICATION AND

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:29021 CRL.A No. 355 of 2023

¶19

DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN SPL.C.C.No.154/2022 ARISING OUT OF VIDE CRIME No.156/2016 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376, 504, 506, 420, 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT OF K.G HALLI POLICE STATION ON THE FILE OF THE CCH-71, BANGALORE AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 02.02.2023 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 111/2023 by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH71), Bengaluru whereunder the anticipatory bail petition of this appellant – accused sought in respect of crime No. 156/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 504, 506, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1989) of Kadugondanahalli Police station now pending in Spl.C. No. 154/2022 came to be rejected.

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:29021 CRL.A No. 355 of 2023

¶24

Heard learned counsel for appellant – accused and

¶25

learned HCGP for respondent No.1 – State. None appears for respondent No. 2.

¶26

Case of the prosecution is that, respondent No. 2 filed complaint against the appellant – accused stating that she and the appellant – accused were loving each other and the appellant – accused has committed forcible sexual intercourse on her against her will on several occasions on the promise of marriage and subsequently failed to keep up his promise. When the complainant went to the house of the appellant – accused requesting him to marry her, the appellant – accused along with his parents insulted her with an intention to humiliate her by taking name of her caste and also threatened to take her life. The Police after investigation filed charge sheet against the appellant – accused and other accused and case came to be registered in Spl.C. No. 601/2019. As the appellant – accused could not be secured, case against him came to be split up and split up case is registered in Spl.C. No. 154/2022. The

¶27

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:29021 CRL.A No. 355 of 2023

¶28

appellant – accused apprehending his arrest filed petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. which came to be rejected by

¶29

the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant – accused would

¶31

contend that there was love affair between the appellant – accused and the complainant and as they belonged to different castes, family members of the complainant did not agree inspite of request by the appellant – accused. As the appellant – accused went abroad to secure his presence a false complaint came to be registered by the complainant. He further submits that in original case, Spl.C. No.601/2019 the complainant/victim has not supported the case of the prosecution in the trial held against other accused who were family members of the appellant – accused and they have been acquitted. He further submits that in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. the victim girl has stated regarding the appellant – accused coming to her house for talks regarding their marriage with her parents. He further

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:29021 CRL.A No. 355 of 2023

¶33

submits that the appellant – accused has now come back to India and he is doing job in a private company and if he is arrested, he will loose his job. With this he prayed to allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to the appellant – accused.

¶34

Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for

¶35

respondent No. 1 would contend that perusal of the averments of the complaint, statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., would reveal that this appellant – accused committed forcible sexual intercourse on the victim girl on 05.07.2015 in his house and subsequently even though he had promised, failed to marry her and went abroad. There is a prima facie case against this appellant – accused for the offence alleged against him. The offence alleged against him is punishable with imprisonment for life. The offence alleged under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)((w) and 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 and as there is a bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 the Special Court has rightly rejected his petition

¶36

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:29021 CRL.A No. 355 of 2023

¶37

seeking anticipatory bail. The Special Court in the impugned order at paragraph No. 13 has stated that this appellant – accused is a proclaimed offender. Considering all these aspects the Special Court has rightly rejected the petition by the impugned order which does not call for interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶38

Respondent No. 2 filed complaint against appellant

¶39

– accused and other accused on 17.04.2016. In the said

¶40

complaint it is alleged that on 05.07.2015 the appellant – accused in his house, in a room committed forcible sexual intercourse on the victim girl and subsequently promised to marry her and did not marry her as promised and abused her taking the name of her caste in filthy language. The statement of the victim girl has also been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. wherein she has reiterated the said aspects. Looking to the said aspects, it appears that there is a prima facie case against this appellant – accused for the offences alleged against him

¶41

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:29021 CRL.A No. 355 of 2023

¶42

including the offence under Section 3 of the Act, 1989. Merely because the victim girl has turned hostile in other case registered against the co-accused is not a ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant – accused when the main allegation of forcible sexual intercourse is alleged against him. The appellant – accused, inspite of knowing that he had promised the victim girl to marry her, went abroad and stayed there for several years. The very aspect goes to show the intention of the appellant – accused. Considering all these aspects the trial Court has rightly rejected his petition by the impugned order. There are no grounds for setting aside the impugned order and granting anticipatory bail to the appellant – accused. Hence, appeal is dismissed.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

LRS

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Adeebulla Sharief v. State by Kadugondanahalli Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adeebulla Sharief v. State by Kadugondanahalli Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesha Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt Priyadarishini D Vs State of Karnataka by SHO

Nandisha Vs State of Karnataka

Shashank Vs State of Karnataka

Umesha. N Vs State of Karnataka

Krishnappa @ Krishna Vs the State