Allowed

Mufid Ahmed v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2024CRL.P/8992/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka entertained a bail petition under S. 439 Cr.P.C. challenging the rejection of bail in a POCSO case. The High Court allowed the petition, granting bail subject to standard conditions including bond execution and appearance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail for Crime No. 251/2024 subject to bond of Rs. 1 Lakh with sureties and conditions against tampering and future offences.

Mufid Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka by — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:49571 CRL.P No. 8992 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8992 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MUFID AHMED S/O BUDHAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.17, 3^RD FLOOR, NAGARAJ GARDEN VINAYAKANAGARA J P NAGARA 5^TH STAGE BENGALURU.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHASHIDHARA R., A/W SRI. SHANTHA KUMARA H T.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO, PUTTENAHALLI P S., BENGALURU CITY REPTD BY HIGH COURT GOVT PLEADER HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

SMT NASEEMA BHANU W/O NADEEM AHMED AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.17, 5^TH CROSS NAGARAJ GARDEN VINYAKANAGARA J P NAGAR 5TH STAGE BENGALURU - 560 078

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR 1; SRI. SADDAMHUSEN MAHMAD IKBAL ADAVANI.,ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.251/2024 AND

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:49571 CRL.P No. 8992 of 2024

¶20

SPL.C.NO.1343/2024 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 8,9(L),10,11(1),12 OF POCSO ACT REGISTERED BY PUTTENAHALLI P.S. NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE FTSC-1 BENGALURUTHE FTSC-1 ACC AND SJ, BENGALURU HAS DISMISSED THE BAIL PETITION ON 25.07.2024 IN CRL.MISC.NO.6287/2024.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Accused in Special Case No.1343/2024, pending

¶25

before the Court of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Bengaluru arising out of Crime No.251/2024 registered by Puttenahalli Police Station, Bangaluru for the offences punishable under Section 8, 9(L), 10, 11(i), 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is before this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

F.I.R. in Crime No.251/2024 was registered by

¶28

Puttenahalli Police Station, Bangaluru against the petitioner herein initially for the offences punishable under Sections 8 and 12 the Protection of Children from Sexual

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49571 CRL.P No. 8992 of 2024

¶30

Offences Act, 2012 on the basis of first information dated 12.06.2024 received from respondent No.2, who is the mother of the victim girl aged about 14 years and 5 months. During the course of investigation of the case, the petitioner herein was arrested on 13.06.2024 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. Investigation of the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

¶31

The bail application filed by the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.6287/2024 before the jurisdictional Court was rejected on 25.07.2024. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner's wife and the first informant are direct sisters, for extraneous reasons a false complaint has been filed. He submits that petitioner and his family members have now shifted their house and they are residing in a rental premises at Chamrajpete. Petitioner has no other criminal antecedents. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:49571 CRL.P No. 8992 of 2024

¶35

Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for

¶36

respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have opposed the bail application and they submit that the victim girl is a minor and the alleged offences therefore get attracted against the petitioner. Petitioner being a close relative has committed a heinous offence against the victim girl. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition.

¶37

Petitioner who has no other criminal antecedents is in custody for nearly six months. The maximum punishment for the alleged offences is imprisonment for a period of Seven years. Investigation of the case is completed and the charge sheet has been filed.

¶38

Perusal of the material available on record would go to show that the parties are close relatives and the petitioner's wife is the direct sister of the first informant. According to the petitioner, for extraneous reasons a false complaint has been filed. He has produced materials before this Court to show that he and his family members

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:49571 CRL.P No. 8992 of 2024

¶40

have now shifted their residence to Chamrajpete, after the present criminal case is registered against the petitioner and now the family members of the petitioner are residing at Chamrajpete. The allegations in the charge sheet is that petitioner who is the uncle of the victim girl while bringing her from the School had taken her to his house under the guise of giving her chocolate and icecream and had showed his private parts and also had asked her to touch the same. He also allegedly had asked her to remove her cloths and had touched her inappropriately.

¶41

The allegations found in the charge sheet are required to be proved in full pledged Trial.

¶42

Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter and for the reason that the petitioner who has no criminal antecedents is in custody for nearly last six months, I am of the view that prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly the following.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:49571 CRL.P No. 8992 of 2024

¶45

O R D E R

¶46

The petition is allowed .

¶47

The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.251/2024, registered by Puttenahalli Police Station, Bangaluru for the offences punishable under Section 8, 9(L), 10, 11(i), 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, subject to the following conditions:

¶48

a) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶49

b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶50

c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶51

d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:49571 CRL.P No. 8992 of 2024

¶54

e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.

¶55

SD/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶56

RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Mufid Ahmed v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mufid Ahmed v. State of Karnataka by

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 Srinivas Vs State of Karnataka by

Superintendent of Central Tax Vs Rahul Singvi

Sri Naveenkumar H R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Anand Natarajan Vs the Intelligence Officer

Khaurshrad Ali Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Satish Kumar J Vs the State of Karnataka