IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6095/2017 BETWEEN:
1. SMT.AMREEN AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, W/O. SRI. SHEIK ALLAH BAKASH, 2. SRI. SHEIK ALLABAKASH @ ALLABAKASH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O. LATE. SRI. SHEIK MEHABOOB SAB, BOTH ARE R/AT C/O. SRI. MUNIGOWRAPPA, BEHIND IDDGA GROUND, BHARATH NAGARA, VIJAYAPURA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DIST.-560074 (BY SRI.HARSHA R., ADV.) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANDRA LAYOUT PS, REP. BY SPP, BENGALURU-560001 ...PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.23/2017 (SPL.C.C.NO.180/2017) OF CHANDRA LAYOUT P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 366A,354 OF IPC AND SEC.8 OF POCSO ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 366A of IPC and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.23/2017 and on completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offence under Section 354 of IPC along with offences, which are registered in the FIR.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case that the mother of the victim girl lodged the complaint, wherein it is stated that her daughter, who is aged about 12 years, went to School on 18.01.2017, but she did not return even at 6.00p.m., they searched for her, but could not trace out. Earlier to this also the victim girl went missing once, but she reached home after two days, hence, the complainant did not lodge the complaint. On 19.01.2017 at about 11.00p.m. the victim girl came to the house, her uniform was not there, and when questioned, the victim girl replied that on 18.01.2017 in the afternoon petitioner No.1/accused No.1 had come to her School, asked her to accompany her and when the victim girl said that she will not come, petitioner No.1 told that they will go Nayandanahalli to the house of her mother and they can return back, accordingly, she accompanied, there, the mother of petitioner No.1 gave chudidar and asked the victim girl to wear the same and remove the school dress. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 took her to the house at Vijayapura, on the same night at about 12.00 o’clock, petitioner No.1 and her husband, who is accused No.2/petitioner No.2, both were sleeping naked and petitioner No.2 also asked the victim girl to remove her clothes and put his hands and legs on the victim girl, she got afraid and started to scream, then the neighbour came and took her to her house. On the next day at about 7.00p.m. the mother of the petitioner No.1 went and told that Police are searching the victim girl and told accused No.1 to leave the victim girl near her house. Then, petitioner No.1 left the victim girl near her house and went away. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered for the said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the prosecution material, so also, the contents of the complaint, submitted that there is no prima-facie case made out against the petitioners, there is false implication of the petitioners. Looking to the contents of the complaint, it cannot be imagined that the petitioners have committed such offence as against the victim girl. He has also submitted that now the investigation of the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed, hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has submitted that, the statement of the victim girl is recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate Court; on oath she has stated in accordance with the allegations made in the complaint. He has further submitted that this is nothing but dragging the victim girl into the business of prostitution. The girl is only 12 years old and the offence alleged are under the provisions of IPC and POSCO Act, which are serious in nature, hence, submitted that petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record, so also, the order passed by the LIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, rejecting the bail application of the petitioners herein.
7. Looking to the contents of the complaint and also the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., prima-facie they show the involvement of the petitioners herein in committing the said offence. The offences alleged and the manner in which the victim girl was treated are very obscene. Therefore, looking to these materials on record, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR