Adeebulla Sharief vs State By Kadugondanahalli Police
2023 Latest Caselaw 5627 Kant

                                                   -1-
                                                            NC: 2023:KHC:29021
                                                         CRL.A No. 355 of 2023




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

                                              BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 355 OF 2023
                      BETWEEN:

                            ADEEBULLA SHARIEF
                            S/O NOORULLA SHARIEF
                            AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
                            R/A # 221, 9TH CROSS
                            ANWAR LAYOUT
                            COPY BOARD COLONY
                            ARABIC COLLEGE POST
                            BANGALORE - 560 045.
                                                                ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI MOHAMMED PASHA C, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA       AND:
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA             1.    STATE BY KADUGONDANAHALLI POLICE
                            REP. BY SPP.

                      2.    RAJLAKSHMI
                            D/O VELU
                            AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
                            R/AT #118, 4TH CROSS
                            GOUTAMNAGAR, SRIRAMPURA
                            BANGALORE - 560 021.
                                                               ...RESPONDENTS


                      (BY SRI RAHUL RAI K, HCGP A/W
                       SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP FOR R1
                       SRI GAURAV S, ADVOCATE FOR R2-ABSENT)

                           THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA)
                      ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS BAIL APPLICATION AND
                                  -2-
                                                NC: 2023:KHC:29021
                                             CRL.A No. 355 of 2023




DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE
APPELLANT ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN
SPL.C.C.No.154/2022     ARISING   OUT   OF   VIDE   CRIME
No.156/2016 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 376, 504, 506, 420, 34 OF IPC AND
SEC.3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT OF K.G HALLI
POLICE STATION ON THE FILE OF THE CCH-71, BANGALORE
AND ETC.,

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed seeking to set aside the order

dated 02.02.2023 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 111/2023 by the

LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH71),

Bengaluru whereunder the anticipatory bail petition of this

appellant - accused sought in respect of crime No.

156/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 376,

504, 506, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections

3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act,

1989) of Kadugondanahalli Police station now pending in

Spl.C. No. 154/2022 came to be rejected.

NC: 2023:KHC:29021 CRL.A No. 355 of 2023

2. Heard learned counsel for appellant - accused and

learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - State. None appears

for respondent No. 2.

3. Case of the prosecution is that, respondent No. 2

filed complaint against the appellant - accused stating that

she and the appellant - accused were loving each other

and the appellant - accused has committed forcible sexual

intercourse on her against her will on several occasions on

the promise of marriage and subsequently failed to keep

up his promise. When the complainant went to the house

of the appellant - accused requesting him to marry her,

the appellant - accused along with his parents insulted her

with an intention to humiliate her by taking name of her

caste and also threatened to take her life. The Police after

investigation filed charge sheet against the appellant -

accused and other accused and case came to be registered

in Spl.C. No. 601/2019. As the appellant - accused could

not be secured, case against him came to be split up and

split up case is registered in Spl.C. No. 154/2022. The

NC: 2023:KHC:29021 CRL.A No. 355 of 2023

appellant - accused apprehending his arrest filed petition

under Section 438 Cr.P.C. which came to be rejected by

the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant - accused would

contend that there was love affair between the appellant -

accused and the complainant and as they belonged to

different castes, family members of the complainant did

not agree inspite of request by the appellant - accused. As

the appellant - accused went abroad to secure his

presence a false complaint came to be registered by the

complainant. He further submits that in original case,

Spl.C. No.601/2019 the complainant/victim has not

supported the case of the prosecution in the trial held

against other accused who were family members of the

appellant - accused and they have been acquitted. He

further submits that in the statement recorded under

Section 164 of Cr.P.C. the victim girl has stated regarding

the appellant - accused coming to her house for talks

regarding their marriage with her parents. He further

NC: 2023:KHC:29021 CRL.A No. 355 of 2023

submits that the appellant - accused has now come back

to India and he is doing job in a private company and if he

is arrested, he will loose his job. With this he prayed to

allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to the

appellant - accused.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for

respondent No. 1 would contend that perusal of the

averments of the complaint, statement of the victim girl

recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., would reveal that

this appellant - accused committed forcible sexual

intercourse on the victim girl on 05.07.2015 in his house

and subsequently even though he had promised, failed to

marry her and went abroad. There is a prima facie case

against this appellant - accused for the offence alleged

against him. The offence alleged against him is punishable

with imprisonment for life. The offence alleged under

Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)((w) and 3(2)(v) of the Act,

1989 and as there is a bar under Section 18 of the Act,

1989 the Special Court has rightly rejected his petition

NC: 2023:KHC:29021 CRL.A No. 355 of 2023

seeking anticipatory bail. The Special Court in the

impugned order at paragraph No. 13 has stated that this

appellant - accused is a proclaimed offender. Considering

all these aspects the Special Court has rightly rejected the

petition by the impugned order which does not call for

interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to dismiss

the appeal.

6. Respondent No. 2 filed complaint against appellant

- accused and other accused on 17.04.2016. In the said

complaint it is alleged that on 05.07.2015 the appellant -

accused in his house, in a room committed forcible sexual

intercourse on the victim girl and subsequently promised

to marry her and did not marry her as promised and

abused her taking the name of her caste in filthy

language. The statement of the victim girl has also been

recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. wherein she has

reiterated the said aspects. Looking to the said aspects, it

appears that there is a prima facie case against this

appellant - accused for the offences alleged against him

NC: 2023:KHC:29021 CRL.A No. 355 of 2023

including the offence under Section 3 of the Act, 1989.

Merely because the victim girl has turned hostile in other

case registered against the co-accused is not a ground for

grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant - accused when

the main allegation of forcible sexual intercourse is alleged

against him. The appellant - accused, inspite of knowing

that he had promised the victim girl to marry her, went

abroad and stayed there for several years. The very

aspect goes to show the intention of the appellant -

accused. Considering all these aspects the trial Court has

rightly rejected his petition by the impugned order. There

are no grounds for setting aside the impugned order and

granting anticipatory bail to the appellant - accused.

Hence, appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

LRS