Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/7043/2017 of HAROON PASHA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA BY on 28 December 2017
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N K SUDHINDRARAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7043 OF 2017 BETWEEN: HAROON PASHA, S/O SYED ABDUL KAREEM. AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.932, 32ND CROSS, TILAKNAGAR, BANGALORE-560041. ...PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28[TRA]DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE N K SUDHINDRARAO|
CRIMINAL PETITION No./043 OF 2ZOL
BETWEEN:
HAROON PASHA,S/O SYED ABDUL KAREEM.AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,R/AT NO.932, 32[ND]CROSS,TILAKNAGAR,BANGALORE-560041.
..PETITIONER
(BY SRI:HASMATH PASHA, ADV.)
AND STATE OF KARNATAKABY:J.P.NAGAR POLICE, |BANGALORE-5600 /8REP.BY LEARNED SPP | ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI:K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439.CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL INCR.No.682/2016 OF J.P.NAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALOREAND WHICH IS PENDING IN SPL.C.C.NO.72/2017 ON THE FILEOF LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,BANGALORE FOR THE OFFNCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
354A(1)(I),366,376 AND 201 OF IPC AND SEC.4,5(L)6 AND 12OF POCSO ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THISDAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The case is registered on the strength of complaint lodgedby one Habeeb Khan wherein it is stated that the victim girl isaged about 1/7 years, was attending schoo! pursuing studies in10[4,]standard. On 04.11.2016 at about 4.00 pm Naving gone out)from the house at JP Nagar but did not return. In the beginningcomplaint was lodged for the offence punishable under Section363 of IPC, for kidnapping having regard to the age of victim girlbeing 1/7. It is further stated in the complaint that accused wasfollowing the victim girl and also took unfair advantage being herteacner and was advanced towards tne victim on certainoccasion.
2).It was brougnt to my notice that in the beginningthe case was registered by.Kumarswamy layout policesubsequently was transferred to respondent police and case came to be registered against the accused for the offences|punisnabie under Sections 354A(1)(1),366,3/76 and 201 of IPCand Sec.4, 5(L), 6 and 12 of Protection of Children from SexualOffences Act, 2012.
‘3.It is further stated in the complaint that the heinousact of the accused on the victim girl was not for once but wasSpread over for several periods. The learned counsel for thepetitioner would submit that as per FIR, tne occurrence of thesaid offences happened started from 01.01.2015 till 31.08.2016,thus spread over a period of one year eight montns.
4Thus petitioner cannot be held liable for the offences.He would further submit that entire context, circumstances andcontents of complaint by themselves speak that there are noingredients of highest sexual offences.
5. Learned HCGP opposes grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. iaNave|perusedtnecomplaint,FIR,medicalcertificate of victim and 164 statement of victim dated01.17.7016 and otner materials available on record. In tne victim statement, she has stated that wnen she was studying inseventn standard accused was her matnematics teacner andsdeveloped intimacy with her and gradually he committed sexualintercourse witn her on several times at different places bypromising her of marriage.
/.In the medical report it is stated tnat ‘from pnysicaland genital examination of Ms.Nimsan Tasken evidence of signsof sexual intercourse present’. Gone througn the ingredients ofthe offences and _ petitioner said to be in judicial custody from06.11.2016 and till today, investigation is completed.
8. In the circumstances of the case, considering thestay of the judicial custody of the petitioner, I am of the sincereview that, no prejudiced will be caused to the prosecution orends of justice, if the accused is enlarged on bail and theapprehension of the prosecution to be resolved by imposingstringent conditions.
QO.Accordingly, tne petition is allowed. The petitioner isenlarged on bail in connection with Crime No.682/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 354A(1)(1),366,376 and 201
of IPC and Sec.4,5(L)6 and 12 of POCSO Act, subject to|following conditions:
(i) |TnepetitionerSnall|executeapersonal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with|one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court,
Ci)He shall not terrorize or tamper with|any of the prosecution witnesses.|
(il) He shall mark his attendance on every|third and fourth Saturday of each between 8.00|a.m. to 9.00 p.m. once in a montn until furtner|orders by the trial court.
If the petitioner violates any one of the aforementioned conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seekcancellation of bail.
JS.
Sd/-|
JUDGE.