Dismissed¶41

Shamshad S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2025CRL.P/8201/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru (NC: 2025:KHC:34430); Justice Mohammad Nawaz; regular bail application dismissed; woman accused in custody about 1 1/2 years; offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 Immoral Traffic Prevention Act 1956, Section 17 POCSO Act 2012, Section 370 IPC; alleged brothel, minor victims procured from Delhi and U.P.; victims examined as PWs 1 to 3; trial in progress with material witnesses remaining; earlier bail petition Crl.P.No.3737/2024 dismissed as withdrawn 05.06.2024; standing direction to trial Court to expedite; CRL.P No. 8201 of 2025; decided 03.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

The examination of the three minor victims by itself is not a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. ¶40

Shamshad S Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:34430 CRL.P No. 8201 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8201 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHAMSHAD S W/O MANSOOR ALAM AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT No.607, CRESCENT APARTMENT FLAT No.102, 16^TH MAIN, VHBCS LAYOUT, VEERANNAPALAYA, BENGALURU - 560 045.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI ABHAY RAJIV SHIVAM FOR SRI SANTHOSH S NAGARALE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO, GOVINDAPURA PS, BENGALURU CITY, REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROCECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

SOWJANYA.A. D/O ANANDA.G. AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, WORKING IN NGO, CARE AND SUPPORT, VIHAAN BENGALURU.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP FOR R1

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:34430 CRL.P No. 8201 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SRI ANIL KUMAR H, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC (U/S 483 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.No.79/2024 AND SPL.C.No.867/2024 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S. 3,4,5 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC PREVENTION ACT AND SECTION 370 OF IPC AND SECTION 17 OF POCSO ACT REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE/GOVINDAPURA PS., BENGALURU, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I, BENGALURU AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Petitioner, arraigned as accused No.1 in the charge sheet filed by Govindapura Police, Bangalore City in their Police Station Crime No.79/2024, now pending in Spl.C.No.867/2024 on the file of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Bangalore, is before this Court in this petition seeking regular bail.

¶26

It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that recording of the evidence of three victims has been completed by the trial Court, one of the victim examined as PW.3 has categorically stated in the cross-

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34430 CRL.P No. 8201 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

examination that for the first time she is seeing accused No.1 before the Court. He contended that in view of the said statement of the victim, it is clear that the petitioner has not participated in the crime as alleged by the prosecution. He further contended that another victim examined as PW.1 has stated in her cross-examination that the victims were residing in the house of one Gudiya, whereas the name of the petitioner is not Gudiya. He further contended that the allegations against the petitioner are baseless and she has been falsely implicated in the case. He submitted that the petitioner is a woman, she is in custody for the last 1^1/2 years and therefore, by imposing any conditions, she may be enlarged on bail.

¶30

The prayer for bail is opposed by the learned HCGP and the learned counsel appearing for the de-facto complainant. They contended that the minor victims examined as P.Ws 1 to 3 have supported the case of prosecution and this Court in the earlier bail petition preferred by the petitioner, has directed the trial Court to

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34430 CRL.P No. 8201 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

expedite the matter. They submitted that the trial is in progress and there are other material witnesses to be examined and in the event bail is granted to the petitioner, she may tamper the witnesses and also flee from justice.

¶34

Petitioner and another accused are facing trial for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956, Section 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 370 of IPC. It is alleged that the accused have procured the minor victims for the purpose of prostitution from Delhi and U.P. and they were running a brothel.

¶35

Victims are minor girls. They have given evidence before the trial Court. This Court in this bail petition cannot appreciate their evidence, which is the duty of the trial Court. According to prosecution there are other material witnesses to be examined. It is not in dispute that

¶36

petitioner had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.3737/2024. The said petition along with Crl.P.No.4067/2024 preferred by accused No.2 was

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34430 CRL.P No. 8201 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.06.2024.

¶40

This Court directed the trial court to expedite the matter and to dispose of the same taking into consideration the fact that accused are in judicial custody. The trial is in progress. The examination of three minor victims itself is not a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. It is submitted by the prosecution that there are other material witnesses to be examined. Considering that there is already a direction to the trial Court to expedite the

¶41

matter, the petition is dismissed .

¶42

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶43

DKB

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Shamshad S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamshad S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mano P @ Mano Prasanna Vs State of Karnataka

Sathish Vs State of Karnataka by Bommanahalli P.S.

Rajashekar Reddy Vs the State by

Smt. Annapurnamma Vs State by

Sri Abhishek S Vs the State of Karnataka by

Mr.Anil Fernandes Vs the State by Vittal Police