Karnataka High Court
Syed Suheb Pasha vs State Of Karnataka By on 25 April, 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.153/2017
BETWEEN
SYED SUHEB PASHA
S/o SYED SIRAJ PASHA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/o No.890, 1ST 'A' CROSS
DASAPPA GARDEN
BOMBAY TAILORS
BANGALORE.
...PETITIONER
(By Sri ANIL GHOSH G R, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION
BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENT
(By Sri B J ESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
SPL.C.C.No.519/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 366, 344,
376(F) OF IPC AND SECTION 4, 6 OF POCSO ACT, 2012.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Case called. Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. No representation. Call again.
Called again. Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. Again no representation.
Learned High Court Government Pleader is present.
2. It appears that the petitioner or the learned counsel representing the petitioner have no interest in prosecuting the application. However, the Court had gone through the materials available on record and heard learned High Court Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking his enlargement on bail in Cr.No.277/2016 (Spl.C.C.No.519/2016) registered by Ashoka Nagara Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Section 366, 344, 376(f) of IPC and Sections 4, 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
3
4. A case came to be registered on 18.7.2016 at 7.15 p.m. against unknown persons on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Shabana Begum in Cr.No.277/2016. In her complaint, she states that on 17.7.2016, at her place No.246, 1st main road, 7th 'B' cross Rose Garden, Bengaluru, her daughter aged 16 years, studied upto S.S.L.C, but failed, left the house at 2.30 p.m. to go to her aunt's house and stayed with her till evening and thereafter she did not return. The complainant tried her best in searching her daughter, but she was unable to find her. Thus, a missing complaint came to be registered.
5. After investigation, the police have submitted the final report. It is stated therein that one Syed Suheb Pasha, on 17.07.2016, secured the victim girl aged 17 years to his house near St.Philomena's Hospital at R.T Nagar and told her that as she had no father, he would look after her and also would look after the welfare of her mother. Thereafter, took her to the house of CWs. 3 and 4 4 Mohammed Aslam and Mrs.Tharunum respectively, and misrepresented there that the victim girl had lost her father and she is in difficulties. Thus, retained her and subjected her to illegal confinement for 40 days and committed rape on her several times. Insofar as the investigation is concerned, the charge sheet is filed. However, the investigating agency is due to receive the chemical examination report from FSL, Mysuru. The case was registered in FIR as a missing complaint for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. However, on investigation, final report was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 363, 344 and 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. It is seen that the petitioner is said to be in judicial custody since 1.9.2016.
6. As stated above, learned counsel for the petitioner is not available despite the case being called twice and it is also to be seen that the offence committed by the accused is not only punishable under Section 376 of IPC, but the 5 age of the victim girl reflects that the petitioner-accused has also committed the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. Completion of investigation during the stay of the accused in judicial custody cannot be the credence for the case in hand. The Court has also perused the copy of the order dated 22.12.2016 in Spl.C.C.No.519/2016 wherein, the application of the petitioner for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was rejected by the learned L Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
7. In the circumstances, there are no grounds to release the accused-petitioner on bail. Hence, the criminal petition is rejected.
I Sd/-
JUDGE mv