Karnataka High Court
Mohammad Najmi vs State Of Karnataka on 24 June, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3467 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMAD NAJMI
S/O. MOHAMMAD WASIM PACY
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
R/AT NO.301, OSWAL NAGAR
JANEBAYYA THANE DISTRICT
MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA -400601.
2. FIZAN
S/O. KASIM SHEIK
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
B WING, DEEP MILAN, 002
BEHIND N. H. SCHOOL
MARK ROAD
EAST MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA -400064.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIJAY SHETTY B., ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPTD. BY JNANABHARATHI
POLICE STATION
BANGALORE -560056.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI NASRULLA KHAN, H.C.G.P.)
2
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
RELEASE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.
128/2014 OF JNANABHARATHI P.S., BANGALORE CITY,
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 370(A), 506, 366, 370, 420, 342
R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 3 and 4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release them on bail in Crime No.128/2014 registered in respondent police station for offences punishable under Secs.370(A), 506, 366, 370, 420, 342 R/W 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 and also Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners during the course of his arguments submitted that the complainant and petitioners along with others are all from Mumbai. That they are all 3 studying and they were doing freelance modeling and event management in Mumbai. It is the further averments in the complaint that the complainant and other girls were brought from Mumbai saying that they will be in Bangalore pubs to promote Bagpiper brand and they will all be paid handsomely i.e., Rs. 2,200/- per shift for a period of 20 days. When they reached Bangalore on 24.03.2014 in the evening at 4.30 p.m they reached their residence near Dr.Ambedkar college at Mallathahalli and they found that they are not brought to promote any brand in Bangalore but they have been brought here to perform in the City Centre Live band and to perform ill-legal activities and to stand in the middle of the bar obscenely and they have to mingle with the guests and they also promised them that they are going to pay handsome salary and when they came to know about the real fact they protested. At that time the accused persons threatened them with dire consequences and confined them in the house and told them that they will not be let out until they perform 4 for 20 days. On the basis of said complaint case has been registered against the present petitioners and other accused persons.
4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 and also learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent -State.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners during the course of his arguments submitted that when the complainant and others were brought to Bangalore to perform for the Bagpiper brand but subsequently the event has been cancelld. Therefore they were told go back to their place and they insisted on making of payments to them. But, when the event itself is canceled the question of payment will not arise and when they were informed so they have falsely implicated the present petitioners and other accused and they have filed false complaint against them. The learned counsel also made the submission that petitioners are the students studying in the college and 5 investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. By imposing any reasonable conditions the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
6. As against this the learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of arguments stated that the statement of girls recorded by Investigating Officer during the investigation would clearly go to show that the girls were brought to Bangalore not for the purpose of the program of giving the performance in respect of Bagpiper Brand but in fact they were brought to appear before the guests in an obscene way. Hence he made the submission that the statements also clearly go to show that after coming to know about their real performance in the said bar and that they refused to perform the same and protested at that time present accused persons along with other accused persons threatened them and insisted them to give the performance in the said bar. Hence he made the submission that the material on record make out a 6 prima facie case against the present petitioners and hence they are not entitle to grant for bail.
7. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other material produced. It is the case and also statement of Investigating Officer that during the investigation the complainant as well as the other girls have given the statement which is made the basis for the complaint. It is also the case of the prosecution that the complainant and other girls were asked to dance obscenely dressed before the guests in the bar and they were brought to Bangalore by making false representation that they have to take part in an event for promotion of the Bagpiper brand. So the material collected by the Investigation Officer during investigation prima facie goes to show that present petitioners along with other accused persons brought girls to Bangalore to give their performance in the bar in presence of the guests obscenely dressed. Material also goes to show that 7 when they come to know about what they have to perform they protested and at that time life threat has been given by other accused persons and if said performance was not given for 22 days that they would not be allowed to go back to Mumbai. Offences alleged are serious in nature and if the petitioners are set at large, it would have serious consequence. Therefore looking to these material, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the present petitioners. Accordingly petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE RA