High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri. Mudassar Mohammed Hussain … vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri. Mudassar Mohammed Hussain … vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2010
Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA 

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD  I   E

 

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY,» 2'Ox1E'C)R "  E

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE»AC,_R;--I§UMAR5tS"N;\R1Y,.,.E7.

CrI.P.  '    
Between: . E E

Srilviudassar Mohamm'e_dhuessfain Pan'nati,.
Age: 22 years, Occ: B1Is_ir'1ess;._   
R/0. New Gharidhinagar;  '  '

Belgaum.       PETITIONER

(By Sri.\/iishxsrariatid' io,dv;'; 

The State. of Karh a~t.aka_,  ~ , 
Represented by'i.ts@ = V 
State Public Pmsvecutor"
(Khacie Bazai ~P.S.)

 ;Co1,I_rt of Karruatvaka,

 «,Ci1"C1.1:iTI'1'3'6fi(}1'1, Dharwad. .. RESPONDENT

I   {.eyj'sfi:;«'I:r_.jII.ffe5tkhIncIi, HCGP)

it ,  CTLP is filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C.
praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime

, A' No_I265/ 2009 registered by Khade Bazar Pokice Statiofi,
'Beigaum, for the offence punishable under section 363,

 366(A) of IPC pending trial.

/

{X



is)

This Cr1.E' coming on for orders this day, the Court
made the fo11owing:-- 

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under7iS_:ecjtjiori T439′ Q

Cr.P.C. by the learned counsel”‘for3._th’e–lir:_j;ietitionef«

seeking to enlarge the petitioh.er’–._on bbailsinl’

No.265/2009 registered mF’o1ice V

Station, Belgaum vfors.s_the’dnoiffenceys’«punishable under
Sections 353, V366(A)”_oi” recpencssgis-its;.

2. The of”-they petitiesieor vinibrief is as under:
_A X” innocent and law abiding
citizen..__ 4′ Daughter the complainant herself

consented ‘-toilgo ivith the petitioner to Goa. The

her from Bogar ves, Belgaum. They

._ also sllii”1″‘.auto rickshaw. Then they went to bus

sitanciilwhich is near to the railway station. He took

it is her to Goa by bus. It is stated in the complaint that

fldailghter of the complainant and the petitioner were

loving each other. She went along with the petitioner

on 23-9-2009 at 11.30 am. and returned to the

house on 28-10-2009. On 28-10–2009′”–._ the

complainant lodged a complaint against

alleging that her daughter was kidnapped

petitioner took her to Goa andihaid’ sexual in’ter<:_ou'rse«

with her. The Mangalasutra iwgas. seizedfrom*.it'he'p

house of accused No.2
No.2 has been granted 12-11».

2009 in CriV.’Misc.No,:’i.1Vt)i;3_}E§VOf)§:” Court of
Sessions, entitled for bail

has filed the statement of
o1:§3″e’cti on as i

-i:*..S._uman Desurakar filed a complaint about

~. daughter Renuka from her house on

at 11.30 am. and her daughter returned

it house on 28~»10–2009; on enquiry with her

daughter, she came to know that her daughter had

H been kidnapped by the petitioner — accused and took

WE

her to Goa and raped her and that when her daughter
was kidnapped, she was aged 16 years. Statement of

Renuka shows that the petitioner told her tol”:c’orne”‘to

bus stand in front of the railway station

11.30 am. and was taken to'”Goa.

‘ stayed with petitioner’s Vuncle.:__

marry the petitioner on 24./,§;200§.Phetitiioneriiforcibly if

had sexual intercomrse with lire;-.iivi”FhAat of:’28;§1o–2oo9
she was brought back left her at

Bogar Ves and’ she iretjoirned ltojher home. Therefore,

it t’he”v..pcti.tioner has committed the
offencexof raping a minor girl.

4. I heard the learned counsel for the

.’ ‘petitiionerglland learned counsel for the respondent.

A “”§;’_~»_..tffléiyllearned counsel for the petitioner has

prodiicetilitithe certified copy of the FIR. The contents of

if FIR discloses that a case has been registered against

petitioner in Crime No.265/ 2009 by Khadebazar

H Police, Belgaurn for the offences punishable under

/’

5,/’

Sections 363, 366A, 376, 109 r/w 34 IPC. The

contents of the complaint discloses that bothfiaictim

and accused were known to each other. The

of the complainant left the house at

returned after one month. .’

against the petitioner are und.er’-._Sectiot:sA’

366A of IPC. These offenlceslaire nortalpue-isiieeie with V

death or imprisonrrient petitioner is in
the judicial that pre—trial
detention considering the
facts lam of the opinion that this
is a ‘case petitioner on bail.

i it in the nass the following:

i it ORDER
petition is allowed conditionally.

15et:tiene} is granted bail in Crime No.265/2009 of the

i ‘Khadlebazar Police Station, Belgaum on his executing

ialiipersonal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/— with one

3/

surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the

concerned Court on the following conditions:

(i) Petitioner shall not tamper

prosecution witnesses;

(ii) He shall not leave;the::ju{is_t1i’et*io:r1,o{“tiijei’

Court without: obtairzirig perrrLisSio’n 7£ro1n”g

the trial Court;

(iii) If any co_1f1″cEa’tic.;ir1 ioshiziolstted, the bail entails