Mr. Syed Shoaib Vs State of Karnataka by

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KADUGONDANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001)

¶17

CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, PARAPANAGAHARA BANGALORE - 560 001 (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001)

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI NISHAD S.A, ADV., FOR R-3)

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM IN BAIL IN CRIME NO.202/2025 OF

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:27047 CRL.P No. 9214 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

KADUGONDANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY, FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 506, 34, 504, 376, 323, 420, 313, 417 OF IPC WHICH IS ON THE FILE OF HONBLE XTH ADDL.CMM, BANGALORE ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Accused in Crime No.202/2025 registered by Kadugondana Halli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 34, 504, 376, 323, 420, 313 and 417 of IPC, is before this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶30

FIR in Crime No.202/2025 was registered by

¶31

Kadugondana Halli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the aforesaid offences against petitioner and others based on the first information dated 02.06.2025 received from victim lady aged about 29 years. During the course of investigation, petitioner was arrested on 02.06.2025 and subsequently, remanded to judicial custody. His bail application filed before

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:27047 CRL.P No. 9214 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.No.4807/2025 was rejected on 25.06.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶36

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner and the alleged victim lady were in a consensual relationship for a period of seven years and after the relationship got failed, she has filed a false complaint against the petitioner for extraneous reasons. He submits that further proceedings in Crime No.202/2025 as against the petitioner has been stayed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.9524/2025. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶37

Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2, who has filed his statement of objections have opposed the petition. They submit that the offence punishable under Section 313 of IPC is punishable with life imprisonment. Petitioner had obtained consent of the victim lady by making a false promise to her. He had suppressed his first marriage and had induced the victim lady to live with him and had made her believe that he would be marrying her and it is in these circumstances, she had lived with him and had consented to have sex with him. Learned

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:27047 CRL.P No. 9214 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

counsel for respondent No.2 submits that petitioner is in custody of obscene private photos and videos of the victim lady and in the event, he is enlarged on bail, there is a danger of he circulating the said videos and photos in social media. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition.

¶41

A reading of the first information submitted by the victim

¶42

lady aged about 29 years would go to show that she is acquainted to the petitioner for the last seven years and she has stated that she was living with him in an Apartment for the last seven years. She has mentioned that petitioner had suppressed about his first marriage with her and only subsequently she came to know about the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has stated that victim lady came to know about the marriage of the petitioner with another lady only after a period of two years after she started living with him. If that is true, then even after coming to know about petitioner's earlier marriage, victim lady had continued her relationship with the petitioner and she had lived with him for a further period of five years in the same apartment.

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:27047 CRL.P No. 9214 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

After the FIR was registered against the petitioner, victim

¶47

lady was subjected to medical examination and before the Doctor, who had medically examined the victim lady, she has stated that she was in live-in relationship with the petitioner and they stayed together in a apartment at HBR layout and had consensual sexual intercourse for about 8 years from 2017. She

¶48

has also stated about medical termination of her pregnancy in the year 2019 and she has said that the last sexual intercourse she had with the petitioner was on 23.05.2025. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that petitioner and the victim lady were living together and they had a consensual sexual relationship. Even after the victim lady came to know that the petitioner was a married man, she had continued her relationship with him for a period of more than five years and had lived with him under the same roof. It is not in dispute that further proceedings in Crime No.202/2025 registered by Kadugondana Halli Police Station, Bengaluru, as against the petitioner has been stayed by the coordinate bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.9524/2025 and the said interim order is in operation even as on this day. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:27047 CRL.P No. 9214 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

petitioner's prayer for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively, subject to appropriate conditions. Accordingly, the following order:-

¶53

The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.202/2025 registered by Kadugondana Halli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 34, 504, 376, 323, 420, 313 and 417 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶54

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

¶55

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;

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:27047 CRL.P No. 9214 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

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.

¶62

Sd /- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶63

DN

Mr. Syed Shoaib v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Syed Shoaib v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Rohith C T., Vs State of Karnataka

Krishnegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Prakasha v Vs State by Mysuru South Ps

Sanjay Vs State by Koratagere Police Station

Nayaz Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Basavaraju @ Kariya Vs State by Jayapura Police Station