SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shohanraj Mehta vs State By Cottonpet Police Station on 26 July, 2018

:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR

CRL.P NO 3356 OF 2018

BETWEEN

SHOHANRAJ MEHTA,
S/O MANIK CHAND MEHTA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT NO.776/1, 2ND D CROSS ,
10TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE, 3RD BLOCK,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560068.
….. PETITIONER
(BY SRI N.D. GUNDE, ADV.)

AND

STATE BY COTTONPET POLICE STATION
BANGALORE 560053
(REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BANGALORE 560001)
….. RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT AY
BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.51/2018 (CIS
NO.442/2018) OF COTTONPET POLICE STATION, BANGALORE
CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506,420,354,498A,34 OF IPC
AND SECTION 4,8,12 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM
SEXUAL OFFENCE ACT.
:2:

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This bail petition has been filed by the

petitioner/accused No.4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in the

event of his arrest in respect of Koppal Town Police Station

Crime No.119/2018 for the offences punishable under

Sections 506, 420, 354, 498-A 376 read with Section 34

of IPC beside Sections 4, 8 12 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and so also learned H.C.G.P. for the State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the

complainant-Smt. Jyothi Ajit Mehta lodged a complaint

before the National Commission for Women at Bengaluru

and the same came to be transferred and registered in

Crime No.51/2018 on the file of Cottonpet Police Station,

Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections

Sections 506, 420, 354, 498-A of IPC read with Section 34

of IPC. Subsequently, on the jurisdictional point, the same

was again transferred to Koppal Town Police Station and
:3:

registered in Crime No.119/2018 for the aforesaid offences

and thereafter Section 376 of IPC invoked in the Crime

No.119/2018. It is alleged in the complaint that initially

complainant had married to one Sanjay Gandhi and out of

the said wedlock, a female child born to them. Due to

some differences, they got divorced mutually. Thereafter,

the complainant met the accused No.1 and both got

married. They started residing in the house belonging to

the mother of the complainant. Out of this wedlock, a

male child born to them. Accused No.3 who is mother-in-

law of the complainant was visiting the house of the

complainant. In the meantime the complainant had given

500 grams of gold, 2 kg silver and cash of Rs.25,000/- to

accused No.3. Thereafter on many occasion, the

complainant had given cash and other valuables to

accused No.3. It is alleged that accused No.1 misused the

entire cash in gambling. He also subjected the

complainant to cruelty. At that time, accused No.3 took

the complainant to the house of accused No.2 who is her

another son. The said accused No.2 objected for bringing

the complainant to his house and left his house along with
:4:

his family members. In the meanwhile, the uncle of

accused No.1, who is present petitioner intervened in the

family and in the guise of settling the matter, he sexually

exploited the complainant as well as the daughter of

complainant. Thereafter, on several occasion, accused

No.4 sexually exploited the complainant. The same was

brought to the notice of accused No.1 who is the husband

of complainant but he adviced the complainant to

cooperate with his uncle, accused No.4. Since it was

within the family, complainant has not chosen to lodge a

complaint. Therefore, she filed a complaint before the

National Commission for Women which came to be

transferred to Cottonpet Police Station and again on

jurisdictional point, it transferred to Koppal Town Police

Station. The Investigating Officer took up the investigation

and filed charge sheet against the accused after recording

the statements of witnesses.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

this petitioner is aged 68 years and he is falsely implicated

in the case. He further submits that initially petitioner’s

name was not included in the complaint filed before the
:5:

National Commission for Women. It is only thereafter

when the said complaint transferred to Koppal Town Police

Station, this petitioner’s name came to be included.

Moreover, mother of the complainant has given her

statement as CW-3 during the course of investigation who

did not spell about the offence against this petitioner.

Petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by

this Court. On all these grounds, he prays for grant of

anticipatory bail.

5. Learned H.C.G.P. strenuously opposes the

petition and has filed statement of objections. He submits

that the Investigating Officer, based on the complaint filed

by the complainant, conducted the investigation. After

recording the statements of witnesses, drawn panchanama

and also recorded the statements of complainant and her

daughter and subjected both of them to medical

examination. Thereafter accused Nos.1 and 3 were

apprehended and they have given voluntary statements

admitting the guilt. After completion of investigation, the

Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the

accused. As this petitioner was absconding during trial
:6:

and not made himself available for the investigation, the

Investigating Officer prays for filing of additional charge

sheet in the event of arrest of this petitioner. He further

submits that the present petitioner being the elder person

of the family has committed heinous crime on the

complainant as well as her daughter who is a school going

girl studying at Military School, Nasik. It is further

submitted that NBW has been issued against this petitioner

as there are prima facie materials to make out a case.

Thus being the facts, if this Court granted anticipatory bail

to the petitioner, certainly he would tamper or hamper the

prosecution case. On all these grounds, he prays for

dismissal of the petition.

6. Having regard to the strenuous contentions

taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is

relevant to state that the complainant-Smt. Jyothi Ajit

Mehta lodged a complaint before the National Commission

for Women at Bengaluru and the same came to be

transferred and registered in Crime No.51/2018 on the file

of Cottonpet Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences

punishable under Sections Sections 506, 420, 354, 498-A
:7:

of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. Subsequently, on the

jurisdictional point, the same was again transferred to

Koppal Town Police Station and registered in Crime

No.119/2018 for the aforesaid offences and thereafter

Section 376 of IPC invoked in the Crime No.119/2018. It

is alleged in the complaint that initially complainant had

married to one Sanjay Gandhi and out of the said wedlock,

a female child born to them. Due to some differences,

they got divorced mutually. Thereafter, the complainant

met the accused No.1 and both got married. They started

residing in the house belonging to the mother of the

complainant. Out of this wedlock, a male child born to

them. Accused No.3 who is mother-in-law of the

complainant was visiting the house of the complainant. In

the meantime the complainant had given 500 grams of

gold, 2 kg silver and cash of Rs.25,000/- to accused No.3.

Thereafter on many occasions, the complainant had given

cash and other valuables to accused No.3. It is alleged

that accused No.1 misused the entire cash in gambling.

He also subjected the complainant to cruelty. At that time,

accused No.3 took the complainant to the house of
:8:

accused No.2 who is another son. The said accused No.2

objected for bringing the complainant to his house and left

his house along with his family members. In the

meanwhile, the uncle of accused No.1, who is present

petitioner intervened in the family and in the guise of

settling the matter, he sexually exploited the complainant

as well as the daughter of complainant. Thereafter, on

several occasion, accused No.4 sexually exploited the

complainant. The same was brought to the notice of

accused No.1 who is the husband of complainant but he

adviced the complainant to cooperate with his uncle,

accused No.4. Since it was within the family, complainant

has not chosen to lodge complaint. Therefore, she filed a

complaint before the National Commission for Women

which came to be transferred to Cottonpet Police Station

and again on jurisdictional point, it transferred to Koppal

Town Police Station. The Investigating Officer took up the

investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused

after recording the statements of witnesses. Moreover, it

is stated that CW-3 mother of the complainant did not

spell about the offences as alleged against this petitioner.
:9:

Petitioner is aged about 68 years having several health

issues.

7. However, it is necessary at this stage that

though enough materials as well as substances are there,

the same is enough for proceeding with the case for

framing of charge against the accused. But it cannot be

said that there are enough materials to decline the relief of

bail, merely because for allegation made against the

petitioner.

8. Therefore, at this stage it is said that it does

not require for any detailed discussion, while considering

the bail petition filed by the petitioner/accused, as there

are substance in the contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner seeking for the relief of bail. Whereas,

learned H.C.G.P. submits that if the accused is supposed to

be released on bail, certainly he would come in the way of

prosecution case and would destroy the evidence. This

apprehension expressed by the learned H.C.G.P., could be

curtailed by imposing certain suitable conditions to

safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, for

the aforesaid reasons as well as under the circumstances
: 10 :

of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the

petitioner/accused deserves for the relief of bail.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The bail petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.4

under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is

hereby allowed, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer in Crime No.119/2018
of Koppal Town Police Station within a
period of 20 days from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order and shall execute a
bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one
surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of
Investigating Officer, in the event of his
arrest by the Koppal Town P.S. in the said
crime.

(ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with
Investigating Officer during the course of
investigation, if necessary.

(iii) The petitioner shall not indulge with any
other criminal activities henceforth.

: 11 :

(iv) The petitioner shall not tamper or hamper
the case of prosecution witnesses.

If the petitioner violates any of the conditions, the

bail order shall automatically stands ceased.

SD/-

JUDGE
Naa

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation