Maheboo Ahmed vs State By The Electronic City on 22 March, 2017

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Maheboo Ahmed vs State By The Electronic City on 22 March, 2017

Bench: John Michael Cunha

                           -1-




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF MARCH 2017

                        BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7308/2016

Between:

Maheboo Ahmed, 25 years
S/o Abdus Subhan
C/o 294, 3rd Cross, Celebrate Layout,
Dodda Thugooru,
Electronic City,
Bengaluru- 580 100                        ...Petitioner

(By Sri.Rajesh Rai K., Advocate)

And:
State by the Electronic City
Police Bangaluru Dist
Rep. by the State Public prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru- 560 001                      ... Respondent

(By Sri.B.J.Eshwarappa., HCGP)

     This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439
CR.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.269/2016 of electronic city P.S., Bengaluru City
and C.C.No.5961/2016 for the offences punishable
under Section 376(D), 506 read with Section 34 of IPC
and etc.
                            -2-




      This Criminal Petition is coming on for orders this
day, the court made the following:

                       ORDER

This petition is filed by accused No.1 for grant of regular bail in C.C.No.5961/2016.

2. The chargesheet is laid against the petitioner and two other accused under Section 376(D), 307, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. The complaint was lodged by the victim on 16.05.2016 at 09.30 am, alleging that on the previous night i.e., 15.05.2016 at about 11-11.30 pm she was talking over the phone with her boyfriend. At that time, the accused herein called her over the phone and asked her to come to the shop below their apartment for smoking and the victim went there. She was taken to the room of accused No.3 where all the accused committed the acts making out the offences under Section 376(D) of -3- IPC. It is also alleged that the accused issued threat to the life of the complainant and also attempted to kill her.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conduct of the petitioner reveals that she herself was a consenting party and further the learned counsel submits that the investigation is completed and therefore, there is no requirement of the petitioner being continued in custody.

5. Having gone through the material collected by the investigating agency and having regard to the manner of the commission of the offences and the over-acts alleged against the accused which are duly supported by the statement of the victim and other attendant circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be admitted to bail at this stage. The acts committed by the accused is not only pervert but would endanger society if the petitioner is enlarged on bail -4- pending trial. Hence, I am not inclined to allow the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE DN/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court