Dismissed

Sri. Ummar Kunhi @ Mohammed Kunhi @ Kunhi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2023CRL.P/629/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. because the petitioner had previously jumped bail in a similar case, proving he was not a law-abiding citizen, thus defeating the necessity for anticipatory bail to arrest him.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition rejected; no anticipatory bail granted; surrender and regular bail application allowed.

Sri. Ummar Kunhi @ Mohammed Kunhi @ Kunhi Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 629 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 629 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. UMMARKUNHI @, MOHAMMED KUNHI @ KUNHI, S/O. MOIDDINKUNHI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT. MARIKKAL HOUSE, MONTEPADAVU OF NARINGANA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK - 574 235.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA N.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, MANGALURU WOMEN POLICE STATION, D. K DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

XXX, D/O. ABDUL BASHEER, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, R/AT MADANI NAGAR, KUTTARU, MANGALURU CITY - 577 132.

¶14

¶15

CRL.P No. 629 of 2023

¶16

PRESENT AT NO.1-111(3A), URUMANE, MANJANAADI, MANGALORE - 574 237.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. VINAYAKA V S.,HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.30/2022 OF MANGALURU WOMEN P.S., MANGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.120-B, 354-A, 363, 366-A, 370-A, 370-4,376, 109, 506 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC 1860 AND SEC,.8, 12, 14, 17, 18 OF PCOSO ACT AND SEC.3, 4, 5, 6 AND 8 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC PREVENTION ACT 1956 AND SEC.67-B INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-II (POCSO) D.K., MANGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.97/2022.

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

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

¶23

Present petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶25

An FIR came to be filed in Crime No.30/2022 on 07.03.2022 against the accused/petitioner by the Mangalore Women Police Station for the offences punishable under

¶26

3 - CRL.P No. 629 of 2023

¶27

Sections 363, 370, 506, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short), under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'ITP Act' for short) and under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012(hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act' for short).

¶28

Gist of the complaint averments reveals that victim girl was introduced by the petitioner to other accused persons wherein the victim girl was forced to indulge in prostitution. Victim girl is a minor. On different dates, she has been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse and different cases have been filed. In all the cases, the role assigned to the present petitioner is that he introduced the victim girl to other accused persons.

¶29

In fact, accused was granted bail in respect of Crime No.8/2022, which is now pending in Special Case No.103/2022 before the Additional District & Sessions Judge/FTSC-II (POCSO), Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru.

¶30

¶31

CRL.P No. 629 of 2023

¶32

Admittedly, the petitioner has jumped the bail in respect of Crime No.8/2022 which is now pending in Special Case No.103/2022. Thereafter, he has approached for grant of anticipatory bail before the very same Court in Special Case No.937/2022, which was turned down by the learned Special Judge. Subsequently, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶33

Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and he could not appear before the trial Court in Special Case No. 937/2022 and therefore, non-bailable warrant is issued and that would not prevent the petitioner from obtaining an order of grant of anticipatory bail at the hands of this Court. Hence, sought for allowing the petition.

¶34

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes for grant of anticipatory bail contending that the petitioner is not a law abiding citizen. In fact, he had the benefit of grant of bail, which he has jumped and therefore, the petition is not maintainable.

¶35

¶36

CRL.P No. 629 of 2023

¶37

9 . Though respondent No.2/complainant is served, complainant remained absent.

¶38

In the light of the rival contentions, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously.

¶39

Role assigned to the petitioner in Crime No.8/2022 and other cases is that he has introduced the victim girl to the other accused persons whereby the victim girl was made to indulge in prostitution. Admittedly, the victim girl is a minor.

¶40

Taking note of the fact that the petitioner had already been bail, which he had jumped and is not available to the trial, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is sufficient force in the argument putforth on behalf of the learned High Court Government Pleader that petitioner is not a law abiding citizen and therefore, he would not be entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. In fact, the conduct of the petitioner proves the apprehension of the prosecution.

¶41

The apprehension of the prosecution is well founded and does not make out a case for entertaining the petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this Court passes the following:

¶42

¶43

CRL.P No. 629 of 2023

¶44

O R D E R

¶45

The Criminal Petition is rejected .

¶46

However, if the petitioner surrenders before the trial Court and applies for grant of regular bail, this order shall not come in the way.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

VBS/PL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Sri. Ummar Kunhi @ Mohammed Kunhi @ Kunhi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ummar Kunhi @ Mohammed Kunhi @ Kunhi 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

Sri Nizam @ Mohammed Nizam Vs State of Karnataka

Chandrahasha K T @ Chandra Vs State of Karnataka

S Pervez Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Umar Kunhi @ Mohammed Kunhi @ Kunhi Vs State of Karnataka

Ummarkunhi @ Mohammedkunhi @ Kunhi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ummar Kunhi @ Mohammed Kunhi @ Kunhi Vs State of Karnataka