Allowed

Imran Baser Ahmad Jekinakatti v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Jul 2024CRL.P/101620/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Seven accused in a gang-rape case, implicated only in insulting the victim by removing her burkha and not in the rape itself, sought regular bail. The court found their offence not punishable with death or life imprisonment and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.2,00,000 each with two sureties each, subject to conditions against tampering witnesses, attending trial court hearings and committing further offen

Imran Baser Ahmad Jekinakatti Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:10379 CRL.P No. 101620 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101620 OF 2024 (439)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

1 . IMRAN BASER AHMAD JEKINAKATTI, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: AKKI ALUR, TQ: HANGAL DIST: HAVERI.

¶10

2 . REHAN ALIAS ALTAF AHAMED S/O. MOHAMMAD HUSEN VALIKAR, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: MECHANIC, R/O: MEHABOOB NAGAR, AKKI ALUR, TQ: HANGAL,

¶11

DIST: HAVERI.

¶12

3 . MUFID ALIAS MADARSAB S/O. ABDULRAZAK ONIKERI, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: MAQBOOKIYANAGAR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.

¶13

CHANDRASHEKAR HIGH LAXMAN COURT OF KATTIMANI KARNATAKA

¶14

4 . IBRAHIM S/O. KHADARGOUSE BANKAPUR, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: MAQBOOKIYA NAGAR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.

¶15

5 . ISMAIL S/O. ABDULREHAMAN HUBBALLI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: MYAGERI ONI, AKKI ALUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.

¶16

6 . NIYAZ S/O. NAZEERSAB DARGA, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: ISLAMAPUR, AKKI ALUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10379 CRL.P No. 101620 of 2024

¶18

7 . MOHAMMADSADIQ S/O. ABDULABBUSALLIY ALIAS ABUSWALEH, KUSANUR, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE R/O: AKKI ALUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.

¶19

...PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HANGAL POLICE STATION, HANGAL, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.

¶23

(SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP)

¶24

…..RESPONDENT

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16 ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.33/2024 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 307, 341, 363, 376D, 504, 506, 354(A), 354(B), 120B, R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I, HAVERI ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.12/2024 HANGAL POLICE STATION.

¶26

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 23.07.2024, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10379 CRL.P No. 101620 of 2024

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Heard Sri. Aravind D. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Kirtilata R.Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶30

The petitioners are before this Court seeking regular bail in Crime No.12/2024 of respondent Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 307, 341, 363, 376-D, 504, 506, 354(A), 354(B), 120-B r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).

¶31

Brief facts of the case are:

¶32

It is the case of the prosecution that Vinay Kyasanur lodged a complaint stating that he was working as room boy at Idigas lodge situated within the jurisdiction of Hangal police station. On 08.01.2024, around 12.30 p.m., some unknown persons entered into the lodge, especially room No.101 where Somashekhar-CW-23 and CW-22 were staying. After entering into the room, they took both CW-22 and 23 out of the lodge and went away.

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10379 CRL.P No. 101620 of 2024

¶34

Based on the complaint, the jurisdictional police

¶35

registered a case in crime No.12/2024. After registering the case, conducted investigation. During the investigation, the statement of the victim was recorded. The facts of the case have been unfolded in such a way that, the victim was taken to the road of tank bund and thereafter, she was dragged to the forest land bearing survey No.21 and committed gang rape. The victim identified the accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 8 and stated that she had been subjected to gang rape by them at the first instance. Thereafter, again she was taken on their motorcycle to another forest area and there the accused Nos.7, 11 and 13 have committed gang rape. Taking into considerations of her statement and also Based on the statements of other witnesses, and also other materials collected by the jurisdictional police, charge sheet has been submitted against all the accused.

¶36

It is the submission of the learned counsel for

¶37

the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent of the

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10379 CRL.P No. 101620 of 2024

¶39

alleged offences and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The entire allegations made in respect of gang rape only against accused Nos.1 to 3, 7, 8, 11 and 13. The petitioners have been arraigned as accused Nos.5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 16. The allegations made against these petitioners are that, they have insulted by taking out the burkha of the victim.

¶40

It is further submitted that the alleged act of taking of burkha is false and baseless. Except the statement of the victim, none other eye witnesses have spoken before the police regarding the same. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioners may be considered and they may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions.

¶41

The petitioners are the earning members of the family and they are in judicial custody. They will abide the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of their release on bail. Making such submission, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition.

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10379 CRL.P No. 101620 of 2024

¶43

Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently

¶44

opposed the said submissions and submitted that the petitioners are accused Nos.5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 16. As per the averments of the charge sheet, these petitioners have insulted and outraged her modesty by removing her burkha in the public place. Since, the averments made in

¶45

the charge sheet and statement of the victim clearly established the involvement of the petitioners in such offences, they are not entitled for any relief as prayed for. Making such submissions, the learned HCGP prays to dismiss the petition.

¶46

After having heard the learned counsel for respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge sheet, the petitioners herein are stated to have committed offence under Section 354-A, B r/w 149 of IPC. Though, the victim at first instance has disclosed that all

¶47

16 members had taken her near the tank bund in order to commit rape, she further clarified that only accused No.1 to 3, 7, 8, 11 and 13 stated to have committed gang rape.

¶48

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10379 CRL.P No. 101620 of 2024

¶49

The petitioners herein are not the members of the gang rape. The allegations made against these petitioners that they removed her burkha in the public place and thereby, they outraged her modesty.

¶50

The alleged offence is neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life. All the petitioners are earning members of their respective families. Prima facie, it appears from the record that the victim neither sustained any external injury or genital injury inspite of the gang rape. Having considered the nature of the offence and also circumstances and overt-act of the petitioners, I am of the considered opinion that it is appropriate to grant them bail by imposing suitable conditions.

¶51

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

The petition is allowed.

¶54

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.12/2024 of respondent Police Station, on

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC-D:10379 CRL.P No. 101620 of 2024

¶57

executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶58

a) The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶59

b) The petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail.

¶60

c) The petitioners shall not commit any other offences or similar offences till disposal of the case.

¶61

In case, if the petitioners violate any of the bail conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

CT:ANB

¶64

RKM

Imran Baser Ahmad Jekinakatti v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran Baser Ahmad Jekinakatti 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

Basavaraj S/O. Channabasayya Malimath, Vs the State of Karnataka

Benjamin S/O Anthony Maskarnes Vs the State of Karnataka

Hasansab S/O. Makbul Dhalayat Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Manjunath S/O Satyappa Kumbar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahantesh Shirur S/O Mahadevappa Shirur Vs State of Karnataka

Aftab Maqbool Ahamed Chandanakatti S/O Maqboolahamed Vs State of Karnataka