Karnataka High Court
Fakruddin S/O Bashasab Yaligar vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 April, 2022
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.100517/2022
BETWEEN :
Fakruddin
S/o Bashasab Yaligar
Age:24 years, Occ:Business
R/o:Mallamma Nagar
Mudhol Dist:Bagalkot. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri M J Peerjade, Advocate - V.C)
AND :
The State of Karnataka
Through Police Sub-Inspector
Mahalingpur Police Station
R/By State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bench Dharwad. ... RESPONDENT
(By Sri V M Banakar, Addl. SPP - V.C)
---
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
CR.P.C seeking to ordered to be enlarged on regular
Bail, in sessions case No.5011/2021 pending before the
I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot sitting
at Jamkhandi of the offences Punishable U/s 354(c),
2
376, 376(2)(K), 376(2)(N), 503, 506 of IPC R/W Section
67(A) of the information and Technology Act 2000.
This Petition coming on for Orders through
Physical hearing/video conference this day, the court
passed the following;
ORDER
This petition is filed by the sole accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.' for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.3/2021 of Mahalingapur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354C, 376, 376(2)(k), 376(2)(k), 376(2)(n), 503, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IT Act,' for brevity).
2. The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner/accused and the victim-girl were knowing each other and both have developed friendship and on 3 11.05.2019, they went to the room of one Amrutha who is staying along with the victim-girl in one room and two other friends staying with the petitioner/accused in another room. The petitioner went to the room of the victim-girl and committed forcible sexual intercourse under intoxication. Thereafter, the petitioner/accused started calling the victim-girl for sexual intercourse and started giving threat to her that, if she does not co-operate with him, he will send her nude photographs to her parents. It is further stated that, on 02.01.2021, the victim-girl went to Sai Deluxe Lodge along with the petitioner/accused and tried to delete the photographs from his mobile. There also, he committed sexual intercourse and while returning from that place, both have quarreled. The victim-girl informed this incident to her brother and thereafter at the instance of Hindu Jagaran Vedike, she filed complaint in Mahalingpur 4 police station, which came to be registered in Crime No.3/2021 for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner/accused came to be arrested on 07.01.2021 and since then, he is in judicial custody. The petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.5072/2021 and the same came to be rejected by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote, sitting at Jamkhandi, by order dated 04.05.2021.
3. The petitioner had earlier filed petition seeking bail before this Court in Criminal Petition No.101122/2021 and the same came to be rejected by order dated 06.07.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the Sessions Court seeking bail in S.C.No.5011/2021 and the same came to be rejected by order dated 01.12.2021. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail.
5
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was relationship between the petitioner and the victim girl and she moved along with him to different places and therefore the relationship between them is a consensual. It is his further submission that the petitioner is aged 24 years and the victim girl is aged 23 years. The victim girl allowed the petitioner to make recording of video of sexual act with mobile phone belonging to her. It is his further submission that victim girl has accompanied the petitioner to Bengaluru and stayed with the petitioner. This shows that the victim girl has voluntarily gone with the petitioner. His further submission is that the charge sheet is already filed and therefore petitioner is not required for any 6 custodial interrogation. With this he prayed to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor had contended that the offences alleged against the petitioner is heinous in nature and punishable with imprisonment of life. The statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C wherein she has stated each and every overtact of the petitioner threatening and harassing her on the ground that, he will share her nude photographs to others. It is his further submission that on earlier occasion this Court considering the heinousness of the offence and the overt acts alleged against the petitioner has rejected the bail petition. No grounds are made out for successive petition. With this he prayed to reject the bail petition.
7
7. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records.
8. This is the successive bail petition filed by the petitioner and the earlier bail petition filed before this Court came to be rejected considering the gravity of the offence, involvement of the petitioner and charge sheet material. The victim girl in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has specifically stated about overtacts of the petitioner and even alleged that the petitioner has asked the victim girl to convert herself into Muslim community. All the charge sheet material goes to show that there is prime-facie case made against the petitioner. Merely because the petitioner is in judicial custody for more than 15 months is not a ground for grant of bail.
8
9. The petitioner has not made out any new ground for grant of bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSD