Karnataka High Court
Jamal vs State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.746/2022
BETWEEN:
JAMAL
S/O MOHAMMAD HOSSAIN
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT KUTAPALONG ROHINGYA CAMP
UKHIYA TECKNAF COXES BAZAAR
CHITTAGONG DISTARICT
BANGLADESH-743446
ALSO AT NEAR RAILWAY BRIDGE
JAYANTHINAGAR, HARAMAVU
BANGALORE-560043
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KRISHNEGOWDA M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
STATE BY RAMAMURTHYNAGAR P S
HIGH COURT GOVT. PLEADER
HIGH COURT KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
S.C.NO.878/2021 (CR.NO.175/2021) OF RAMAMURTHY NAGAR
2
P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 120B, 201, 204, 323, 324, 343, 366, 366B, 370,
370(A)(2), 376D, 376, 384, 504, 506 R/W. SECTION 149 OF IPC
AND SEC.67A OF I.T ACT AND SEC.14 OF FOREIGNERS ACT AND
SEC.4, 5, 9 OF ITP ACT AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.9 invoking Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking regular bail in Crime No.175/2021 of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station, Banaswadi Sub-Division, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 201, 204, 323, 324, 343, 366, 366(B), 370, 370(A)(2), 376(D), 376, 384, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC, Section 67(A) of I.T. Act, Section 14 of Foreigners Act and Sections 4, 5 and 9 of I.T.P. Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the other accused persons and this petitioner indulged in committing the 3 act of subjecting the women for sexual act, uploading the same in Whatsapp, causing life threat and also indulged in the act of trafficking the women from Bangladesh.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a false complaint has been registered against this petitioner and he was arrested on 27.05.2021 and in the 164 statements of the victim, nowhere mentioned the name of this petitioner and he would also submit that this Court has already granted bail in respect of accused No.12 in Crl.P.No.7748/2021 vide order dated 14.01.2022 and on the ground of parity, this petitioner is also entitled for bail.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that, in the 164 statement of the victim girl, she has referred the name of this petitioner that he was present, but she has not specifically mentioned the name of this petitioner that he subjected her for sexual act, took nude photographs and uploaded the same. He would also submit that, in the statement of victim girl, she has 4 also mentioned that two unknown persons were also present and allegations are made against other accused persons.
7. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly, 164 statement of the victim girl, it is seen that the victim girl was subjected to sexual act against her wish and confined her in a house. But, nowhere, she has mentioned the name of this petitioner. However, an allegation is made that, two months prior to the alleged incident, when she was taken, at that time, this petitioner was present and no specific allegations are made against him that he indulged in sexual act and only mobile was seized. When such being the factual aspects of the case and this petitioner is in custody from the last 8 months and taking note of the fact that name of this petitioner is not mentioned in 164 statement of the victim girl subjecting her for sexual act, hence, he is entitled for bail and also the fact that this Court has already granted bail in favour of accused No.12 in Crl.P.No.7748/2021 and allegations against this petitioner is similar to that of accused No.12, hence, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner, subject 5 to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:-
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused No.9 shall be released on bail in Crime No.175/2021 of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station, Banaswadi Sub-Division, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 201, 204, 323, 324, 343, 366, 366(B), 370, 370(A)(2), 376(D), 376, 384, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC, Section 67(A) of I.T. Act, Section 14 of Foreigners Act and Sections 4, 5 and 9 of I.T.P. Act, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner-accused No.9 shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(iii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing 6 dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court, till the case registered against him is disposed of.
(v) The petitioner-accused No.9 shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Jurisdictional Police, till the disposal of the case since, accused is a foreigner.
Sd/-
JUDGE SN