Karnataka High Court
Sri Mohsin Khan vs The State on 12 October, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4726 OF 2020
BETWEEN
1. Sri. Mohsin Khan,
Aged about 29 years,
S/o. Sri. Javeed Khan,
R/o. 7th Cross, Momin Mohalla,
Anwar Colony, Old Town,
Bhadhravathi-577301.
Shivamogga District.
2. Sri. Thasen Khan,
Aged about 31 years,
S/o. Sri. Javeed Khan,
R/o. Jafar Sab Apartment,
Holehonnur Road,
Khalandar Nagar, Old Town,
Bhadhravathi-577301.
Shivamogga District.
...Petitioners
(By Sri. Prabhakara Laxmana Shetty, Advocate)
AND
The State by Jaya Nagar Police,
Shivamogga, Represented by
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru-560001.
...Respondent
(By Sri. B.J.Rohith, HCGP)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event
of their arrest in Cr.No.57/2020 of Jayanagara Police
Station, Shivamogga, for the offence punishable under
Sections 364A, 397 & 395 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders through
video conferencing this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners are accused 6 and 7 in Cr. No. 57/2020 registered by the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 364A, 395 and 397 of IPC. The petitioners have sought anticipatory bail.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The complaint was made by one Mehabub Pasha on 15.6.2020 stating that as he was suffering from neurological problem in his leg, he was taking body massage regularly at Nisarga Massage Parlour, Shivamogga. Accused No.1 is the friend of the complainant. Accused No.1 and his wife knew that the complainant was taking body massage. During lock down period, accused No.2 requested the complainant to take body massage from accused No.3. She 3 too had been trained in body massaging. Seeing the financial condition of accused No.3, complainant agreed for it. On 9.6.2020, the complainant went to the massage centre and as he laid down on the table, about nine persons aged between 20 to 30 years came inside the massage centre and asked him to remove his underwear. They also asked accused No.3 to remove her clothes, they took photographs, snatched Rs.17,000/- and then took him to a shed situated at some distance from the main road. Complainant was tried to a coconut tree and assaulted severely. The said persons put forward demand for Rs.25,00,000/- and threatened him that they would circulate their nude photographs.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that a false complaint has been made against the petitioners. Their names are not found in the complaint. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. They are permanent residents of Bhadravathi and they are always available for any further investigation. Therefore, he tries to make out a case for anticipatory bail.
4
5. The High Court Government Pleader submits that these two petitioners have absconded since beginning. The charge sheet might have been filed, still certain recoveries are to be made from the petitioners. Therefore, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
6. The allegations made in the complaint appear to be very serious. This need to be proved before the court. Charge sheet might have been filed. But, it also discloses the conduct of the petitioners in not cooperating with the police. Throughout they have remained absconding. Filing of charge sheet does not prevent the police officers from conducting further investigation if necessary, and in that event the petitioners need to be interrogated. I do not find a ground to g rant anticipatory bail. Petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE ckl