Karnataka High Court
Mr. Iqbal Haris vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2015
Author: A.V.Chandrashekara
Bench: A.V.Chandrashekara
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF APRIL, 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.108/2015
BETWEEN:
Mr.IQBAL HARIS,
S/O HAMEED,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/AT SUHAIFA RESIDENCY GREEN GROUND,
DERLAKATTE BELMA VILLAGE,
MANGALURU,
D.K.DISTRICT - 574 343. ...PETITIONER
(By Sri HASMATH PASHA, Adv.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KONAJE POLICE STATION,
D.K.DISTRICT - 574 343. ....RESPONDENT
(By Sri B.J.ESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL, IN
CR.NO.192/2013 (CC No.1011/2014 OF KONAJE POLICE
STATION, MANGALURU CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 120(B),
2
341, 323, 326, 354, 354(B), 364(A), 384, 376(D), 395, 342,
307, 506, 201 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 669E) OF IT
ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
2. Petitioner is accused No.7 in Crime No.192/2013 on the file of Konaje Police Station, Mangalore city. The offences against all the accused are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 341, 323, 326, 354, 354(B), 364(A, 384, 376(D), 395, 342, 307, 506, 201 r/w 149 IPC and Section 66(E) of IT Act. Petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.12.2013. Hence regular bail application is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
3
3. Learned Government Pleader has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that petitioner is involved in a serious of offences and that prima facie case is forthcoming against this petitioner. Hence he has requested this court to dismiss the petition.
4. A case in Cr.No.192/2013 of Konaje Police station had been registered against A1 Subhash, A2 Munna and three others for the offences punishable under section 354-c, 506, 384, 395, 323, 354 and 363 of IPC. It is alleged, the complainant i.e., the victim was doing her internship. She was working with Dr.Hambal who is a post graduate student. The victim was acquainted with Dr.Hambal since three months. On 18.12.2013, the victim had gone out for dinner with Dr.Hambal. While returning, around 11 p.m., near Ayyappa Temple two unknown persons came near the 4 car and asked Dr.Hambal to get down from the car. There was verbal exchange between them. Thereafter, the two unknown persons started assaulting Dr.Hambal with their hands. At that time, one more bike came with three persons. They pushed Dr.Hambal into the back seat of the car. One of the accused started driving the car. The victim started shouting and asked for help. The accused blind folded the victim and Dr.Hambal. After one hour, the accused took the victim and Dr.Hambal near a pond surrounded by trees. The accused asked the victim and Dr.Hambal as to how much they can give them. The victim offered all the money she had which was around `.1,200/-. The accused did not take the money. The accused were demanding money to a tune of about `.50 lakhs. When the victim and Dr.Hambal told the accused persons that it was not possible for them to give so much of money, the accused took them to one abandoned house which 5 was surrounded by trees. The accused compelled the victim and Dr.Hambal to kiss each other. When they refused, A2 Munna threatened them saying, if they do not kiss each other, all the accused persons would kiss them. The victim and Dr.Hambal were forced to kiss each other. It was videographed. Thereafter, A2 Munna and A1 Subhash forced Dr.Hambal to remove his shirt and innerwear. The accused persons compelled the victim to have oral sex with Dr.Hambal. When the victim resisted it, A1 Subhash assaulted the victim and threatened if they do not have oral sex, they would do it. They compelled the victim to remove her bras and made Dr.Hambal to suck her breast. When the victim resisted, A1 Subhash assaulted the victim. It is alleged, A2 Munna was molesting the victim by touching her vital parts of the body, legs, breast etc. When the victim resisted it, he assaulted her with hands. He told that if the victim can have sexual act with Hambal, why not 6 with him. It is alleged the victim was compelled to perform sexual act. To save their lives, the victim had to remove her clothes and perform sexual act. Thereafter, the victim was taken to some other place and left her at about 9.30 a.m., near Thokut on 19.12.2013 to get `.3 lakhs by 12 noon or else they would kill Dr.Hambal. Dr.Hambal remained with the accused.
5. After the investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 120-B, 341, 323, 326, 354, 354-B, 364- A, 384, 376-D, 395, 342, 307, 506 and 201 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC and Sec.66(e) of the I.T.Act.
6. After perusing the allegations, it is evident that the name of this petitioner did not find place in the first information lodged to the police. No overt act is attributed to this petitioner. The main aspect in the 7 present case is the identification of the accused which was conducted by the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Mangalore on 6.2.2014. The copy of the report of the identification parade conducted by the Taluka Executive magistrate discloses that witnesses i.e. CWs-1 and 2 did not identify this petitioner Iqbal Haris @ Haris. Similarly accused Nisar @ Nisar Ahmed, Accused No.8 and Abdul, accused No.4 have not been identified by the witnesses. Though accused No.5 Nawaz @ Praveen has been identified by the witnesses, no serious overt act is attributed to him and accused NO.5 has already been released by this Court in Crl.P.No.127/2015 dated 6.3.2015. Accused No.8 Nisar @ Nisar Ahmed has been already released by this Court in Crl.P.No.6965/2014 dated 30.12.2014.
7. This petitioner has undertaken to obey any conditions that may be imposed on him and he has 8 agreed to cooperate with the Court in conducting the trial. He is a permanent resident of a village in Mangalore Taluk having roots in the community. Thus the apprehension of the Government Pleader could be suitably met out by imposing proper conditions.
8. In this view of the matter, petition is allowed and bail is granted to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in a sum of `1,00,000/- with two sureties, for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) Petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to
tamper any of the prosecution
witnesses.
(iii) Petitioner shall not holdout threats to the prosecution witnesses in any manner.9
(iv) Petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activities.
(v) Petitioner shall give attendance to the respondent - police on every second Sunday of every month between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. without fail, till the disposal of this case, from the date of his release, without fail.
In case of violation of any of the above mentioned conditions, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE ln