Karnataka High Court
Syed vs State Of Karnataka on 29 January, 2018
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.154/2018
BETWEEN:
Syed
S/o Syed Rehaman
R/at No.3614/15, Hidari Ali Mohalla
Srinivasapura
Srinivasapura Taluk
Kolar District-563 135. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri Moyeen Ulla Abbasi, Adv.)
AND:
State of Karnataka
By Srinivasapura Police Station-563 135.
Represented by the
State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bangalore-560 001. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section under
Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the
petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in
Cr.No.342/2017 of Srinivasapura P.S., Kolar District for
the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 376, 506,
509 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 66A of
Information Technology Act.
2
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following :
ORDER
This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner- accused No.3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent police that in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 376, 506, 509 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 66A of Information Technology Act registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.342/2017.
2. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.3 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drawing the attention of the Court to the contents of the complaint and the other materials, made submission that so far as the petitioner is concerned, there is no prima facie material placed by the prosecution to show his 3 involvement in committing the alleged offence. It is also his contention that the alleged offence is said to have been committed in the year 2012 and now the complaint has been filed making the false allegations against the petitioner. There is enormous delay in filing the complaint. It is his further contention that so far as the offence under Section 376 of IPC is concerned, it is only against accused No.1-Arif and not against the petitioner herein. Hence, he submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP made submission that, in this case, during investigation, video recording has been seized by the investigating officer and investigation is still going on. The report from FSL is yet to be obtained. The offences alleged are serious in nature. The allegations prima facie would show the involvement of the petitioner in video-graphing the obscene film and blackmailing the victim. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
4
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials produced in the case.
6. It is submitted by the learned HCGP that video recording has been seized by the investigating officer and the FSL report is yet to be obtained. Investigation is also still going on. The materials would also show the involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offence. Hence, in view of the submission made by learned HCGP and as the investigation is still going on, without making any comments on the merits of the case, the criminal petition is disposed of, for the present, with liberty to the petitioner to renew his request before the concerned Court immediately after completion of the investigation and filing of the final report.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs/-
Ct-SG/-