SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri Afzal Pasha vs State By Whitefield on 26 February, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.995/2018

BETWEEN:

1. Sri. Afzal Pasha
S/o Bhadoor Shariff
Aged about 37 years.

2. Sri. Afshad Ahamed
S/o. Late Shabir Pasha,
Aged about 40 years.

Petitioner No. 1 and 2
Are R/at No.291, Medimallasandra,
Hoskote Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District – 562 114.

3. Ashiya Banu @ S. Asiya
W/o Wazid
Aged about 30 years.
R/at No.170, 1st Floor,
3rd Cross,
Gandhipura Nagar,
Whitefield,
Bengaluru – 560 066.

4. Smt. Farhana Khanum
W/o Afzal Pasha
Aged about 24 yars.

5. Smt. Shamshad Unnisa
W/o. Bahaddur Shariff,
Aged about 68 years.
2

Petitioner NO.4 and 5
Are R/at No.170, 1st Floor,
3rd Cross,
Gandhipura Nagar,
Whitefield,
Bengaluru – 560 066.

6. Smt. Farhna Khanam
W/o Afshad Ahamed
Aged about 28 years,
R/at No.291, Medimallasandra
Hoskote Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District – 562 114.

7. Sri. Bahaddur Shariff
S/o Late Sharif Sab,
Aged about 72 years,
R/at No.170, 3rd Cross,
Gandhipura Nagar,
Whitefield,
Bengaluru – 560 066.

8. Sri. Amjad Pasha
S/o Bahaddur Shariff
Aged about 32 years,
R/at No.170, 3rd Cross,
Gandhipura Nagar,
Whitefield,
Bengaluru – 560 066.
…Petitioners

(By Sri. C.R. Raghavendra Reddy, Advocate)

AND:

State by Whitefield
Police Station,
Rep. by SPP High Court,
Bengaluru – 01.
….Respondent
(By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP)
3

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event
of their arrest in Crime No.17/2018 of Whitefield Police
Station, Bengaluru for the offence p/u/s 506, 504, 376 and
498(A) r/w 34 of IPC.

This criminal petition coming on for Orders, this day,
the Court made the following:-

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused

Nos.1 and 3 to 9 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking

anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to

release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest

for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504,

376 and 498A of IPC registered in respondent police

station Crime No.17/2018.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel

appearing for petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 to 9, and

also the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for respondent-State.

4

3. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in

the case.

4. The complainant filed the first compliant on

20.09.2017 in Crime No.347/2017. It is the submission

made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

that in respect of the first complaint, complaint is filed

only against petitioner/accused No.1 herein. He moved

the bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., before

the learned Sessions Judge and he has been granted bail

in Crl. Misc. No.1548/2017. A copy of the same is

produced.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners herein that subsequently,

after a lapse of 3 months and 25 days, the complainant

again filed another complaint in respect of the very

incident making allegations that the other petitioners

also are involved in committing the alleged offences. In
5

the second complaint, there is no allegation regarding

the alleged rape said to have been committed. Hence, it

is the contention of the petitioners herein that

subsequent complaint is filed with a malafide intention

to involve the family members of the petitioner/accused

No.1 in the said case. It is also his contention that when

one Court has considered the bail petition under Section

439 of Cr.P.C. for the alleged offence under Section 376

of IPC and granted regular bail, subsequently,

complainant filed another compliant making false

allegations against other members of the family, which

does not arise at all.

6. But learned HCGP opposed the petition

contending that the material goes to show that there was

a video recording said to have been done by the other

accused persons and as the names of those accused

were left out in the first compliant, therefore, second

complaint was filed by the complainant. Hence, learned

HCGP submitted that there is a prima-facie case even
6

against the petitioners herein who have been included in

the case, subsequently, as per the second compliant. He

therefore opposes the petition on the ground that the

alleged offences are serious in nature.

7. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced

before the Court with regard to the earlier complaint, bail

order of the learned Sessions Judge, so also the bail

order rejecting anticipatory bail application by the

learned Sessions Judge.

8. It is seen the bail application by accused

No.1, on the basis of the first complaint, has already

been considered by the Court and he has been granted

bail by the order of the Court. Therefore, at this stage, it

cannot be said that the petitioners are not entitled for

anticipatory bail. They have contended in the bail

petition that only to cover the laches in the first

compliant, second complaint came to be filed in respect
7

of the very incident. Learned counsel for the petitioner is

justified in making such submission, in view of the

materials placed on record. It is also contended that

they are innocent, not involved in committing the alleged

offences and are ready to abide by any conditions that

may be imposed on them by this Court.

9. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The

respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the

petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 to 9 on bail in the

event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable

under Sections 506, 504, 376 and 498A of IPC registered

in respondent police station Crime No. 17/2018, subject

to the following conditions:

i. Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 to 9

shall execute a personal bond for a sum
of Rs.50,000/- each and shall furnish
one surety each for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the concerned Court.

ii. Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 to 9

shall not tamper with any of the
prosecution witnesses, directly or
indirectly.

8

iii. Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 to 9

shall make themselves available before
the Investigating Officer for
interrogation, as and when called for
and to co-operate with the further
investigation.

iv. Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 to 9

shall appear before the concerned Court
within 30 days from the date of this
order and to execute personal bond and
surety bond.

Sd/-

JUDGE
VBS

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh