Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1593 (KAR)

Imran S/o : Maqbul Byadagi v. State of Karnataka

2017-12-04

K.SOMASHEKAR

body2017
ORDER : This bail petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Hangal Police Station Crime No.66/2017 relating to Spl. S.C.No.186/2017 for alleging offence punishable under Sections 363, 344, 366, 376 of IPC, besides Section 4 & 6 of (POCSO) Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Since from the date of arrest of the accused is in judicial custody. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner praying for bail among the other grounds urged therein. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under; On 18.04.2017, the complainant who is said to be the mother of victim has filed a complaint before the respondent police alleging that on 14.04.2017, at about 9.00 hours to 22.00 hours, the accused Imran enticing the victim saying as he has to marry her and saying so that the victim has been abducted by the accused. On 20.04.2017, they got married in Dyamavva Temple of Halihal. Subsequent to her marriage, they went to the house of Pradeep who is friend of accused Imran and therein the accused as well as victim girl were residing. On the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant, a crime came to be registered and thereafter proceed with the case for investigation. 3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned HCGP appearing for the respondent/state. 4. The complainant is said to be residing along with her children and also her husband Shekharayya and that the victim Neha being aged about 17 years who is working in the Beauty Parlour from 9.00 am to 8.00 p.m. When she had been for attending the work in Beauty Parlour, the said accused Imran of Hanagal, who had been acquainted with the victim and the said fact which came to the knowledge of complainant, as love affair with the her, to that effect they made advise to the accused. On 14.04.2017, at about 9.00 a.m., that the complainant and her daughter namely Veena were present in the house, as her daughter Neha had been for attending the work in Beauty Parlour situated in Hanagal, but she did not return to the house even 10.00 p.m. Thereafter, they were made attempt to contact in her cell phone but the same has been returned as switched off. Subsequently, that the complainant and her daughter Rajeshwari and also her son-in-law Hanumanthappa as well as her relatives had made in search of the victim Neha but she has not been traced and the same is went in vain. 5. On 14.04.2017, in between 9.00 a.m. to 10.00 p.m., that the accused Imran who abducted the victim Neha, who is aged about 17 years, by enticing her and also promising her for having marriage and the same has been reflected in the complaint which is filed by the complainant Laxmi being the mother of the victim. The statement of the victim said to be recorded under Section 164(1) of Cr.P.C., dated 20.05.2017 by the Prl. JMFC Court, Hanagal P.S., crime No.66/2017, wherein she has been stated in her statement that she was studying up to 9th standard and she had love affair with the accused Imran. But after completion of her S.S.L.C, she was residing in the house thereafter she had been for attending the work in Beauty Parlour. On 20.04.2017, that the victim is said to be married with accused even though she is aged about 17 years, in a temple at Haliyal. Thereafter the accused took the victim to his friend’s house namely Pradeep and they were residing in a separate room. That the accused Imran who had been for attending the goundi work. She is staying with his friend’s mother as well as his sister. As the accused who had physical contact with the victim who is aged about 17 years and the same has been reflected in her statement which is recorded by the Prl. JMFC, Hanagal under Section 164(1) of Cr.P.C. 6. She is staying with his friend’s mother as well as his sister. As the accused who had physical contact with the victim who is aged about 17 years and the same has been reflected in her statement which is recorded by the Prl. JMFC, Hanagal under Section 164(1) of Cr.P.C. 6. Whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has been contended that there is love affair between the accused as well as the victim, and for that reason the accused and victim had been residing in the house Pradeep who is friend of accused, but the accused who had affair with the victim had abducted and also having physical contact with her, which is narrated in her statement recorded under Section 164(1) of Cr.P.C. On filing of the complaint filed by the complainant the crime came to be registered and thereafter proceed with the case for investigation, wherein the Investigation Officer who has recorded the statement of witness and so also conducted mahazar and laid the charge sheet which is pending before the Court in Spl. S.C.No.186/2017. Therefore, the accused did not required for Investigating Agency in further. It is further contended that the accused is ready to abide any terms and conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail to him. But the accused who is in judicial custody since from the date of arrest, but there is no fault of the accused, he is in custody for the alleged offence which is leveled against him in the said crime. It is further contended that the accused is having deep routes in the society. Therefore, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent/state contended that the victim who is aged about 17 years and as she is having love affair with the accused and he had been abducted and also having physical contact with the her in a room belongs to his friend Pradeep and that the accused having married with the victim who is aged about 17 years in a temple and the same has been reflected in the complaint filed by the complainant and so also the statement of victim which was recorded before the Prl. JMFC Hanagal under Section 164(1) of Cr.P.C. As the accused who as enticed the victim and abducted her and had physical contact and the same has been reflected in the charge sheet which is laid by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, it is said that he is not deserving for bail and seeking to rejecting the bail petition. 8. Keeping in view the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, relating to crime No.66/2017, wherein the accused is said to be abducted the victim Neha who is aged about 17 years. Similarly, the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent state has taken contention relating to crime No.66/2017, wherein the accused who abducted the victim Neha who is aged about 17 years and confinement in the room of his friend namely Pradeep and also had physical contact with the victim who is aged about 17 years. The accused is said to be developed the love affair with the victim and made her to enticing and forcibly abducted, wherein she had been for attending the work in Beauty Parlour. Subsequent to missing of the victim Neha who is said to be daughter of the complainant and her relative said to be traced the victim but she could not be traced and the efforts made by them went in vain and the same is seen in the complaint given by the Laxmi before the respondent police. On 14.04.2017, at about 9.00 a.m., that the complainant and her daughter Veena were present in the house. In the meanwhile, the victim Neha had been for attending the work in Beauty Parlour situated in Hanagal, but she did not return to the house even till 10.00 p.m. Subsequently, the complainant as well as her relative made in search of her daughter Neha, came to know that the accused said to be abducted the victim who is aged about 17 years and also made her confinement in the room of Pradeep being the friend of accused and had physical contact with the victim and the same has been reflected in the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer. It is relevant to state that subsequent to registration of the crime against the accused, the Investigating Officer who has taken up the case for investigation by recording the statement of witness so also by conducting mahazar in presence of pancha witness that itself reveals that there are prima facie materials against the accused for committing the alleged offences, where the accused is involved in the heinous offence that too be it is against the victim being a minor aged of 17 years. Therefore, it is said that, if the accused is supposed to released on bail certainly there shall be an adverse impact on the society, as such he is not deserving for bail. 9. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons and as well as in the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not deserving for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.