Arif S/O.

Hajarat Nadaf vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 July, 2014

Karnataka High Court

Arif S/O. Hajarat Nadaf vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 July, 2014
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101213/2014
BETWEEN:
ARIF S/O. HAJARAT NADAF
AGE: 18 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE WORK
R/O. YAKKUNDI,
TQ: SAUNDATTI
DIST: BELGAUM
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI : VISHWANATH BADIGER, ADVOCATE)
AND :
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
(SAUNDATTI P S )
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR
GOVERNMENT PLEADER)

MAJAGE,

HIGH

COURT

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF

CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL
IN CRIME NO.90/2014 REGISTERED BY THE SAUNDATTI
2
P.S. FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 109, 366-A, 376 R/W
SEC. 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 4 & 8 OF PCSO ACT, 2012.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/21308926/

Arif S/O. Hajarat Nadaf vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 July, 2014

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent - State. Perused the records.
2. A person by name Kutubuddin Imamhussain Thorgal, father of the victim girl and resident of
Yakkundi village, Saundatti taluk, had lodged a complaint before Sundatti police alleging that on
06.03.2014 his daughter i.e., victim girl had been to College and at 1.30 p.m. she came back to the
house and went outside at about 2.00 p.m., but she did not return to the house on that day. The
complainant came to know from one Dilawarsab Bandenawaj Mulla and Imam Hussain Ameermaj
Madnur that at about 2.00 p.m. on that day accused No.1 - petitioner had taken his daughter on his
motorcycle. On these allegations police have started the investigation and during the course of
investigation police have arrested the accused - petitioner on 11.03.2014.
3. It is the case of prosecution that, as could be seen from the charge sheet papers that the petitioner
herein had persuaded the victim girl by knowing fully well that she is aged less than 18 years and
assuring that he would marry her, had taken to different places and have had sexual contact with
her, and thereafter police have found them and completed the investigation and filed the charge
sheet. During the course of investigation as many as three statements of victim girl were recorded.
Two statements of victim girl were recorded by police on 11.03.2014 and 25.03.2014. The
jurisdictional Magistrate has also recorded the statement of victim girl under Section 164 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for brevity). In all the three
statements the victim girl had given different versions. In one statement i.e., on 11.03.2014 she had
disclosed that she had fell in love with petitioner and her family members were searching for a
groom for her and in that context she had forced the petitioner to take her to a different place as she
did not want to marry any other person except the petitioner here. She had also stated that she
would consume poison if he does not take her to any place. As such petitioner had taken the victim
girl to different places i.e., to Marihal and then to Belgaum, Kolhapur and Mumbai and ultimately
they came back to Belgaum. The police have caught hold them and brought them to police station.
After fifteen days i.e., on 25.03.2014 the victim girl had given one more statement by totally
deviating her earlier statement and stating that the petitioner has forced her to accompany him
otherwise he would consume poison and he would like to marry her and etc. On said persuasion,
petitioner had taken her to different places. On 27.03.2014 the victim girl had given a statement
before the Magistrate in a different version that the petitioner had forced her to accompany him or
else he would consume poison and also insisted her to consume poison if she does not accompany
him and on that persuasion she had been with petitioner. The statement of victim girl differs from
time to time. The court cannot imagine about the evidence which may be given by the victim girl
during the course of full dressed trial. At present, there are two statements, which are in favour of
the petitioner, but, however, the circumstance shows that the petitioner and victim girl might have
fell in love with each other and the family members of victim girl were searching for a groom for the
victim girl and she was not willing for the said marriage.
4. The prosecution has also produced the S.S.L.C. Certificate pertaining to this victim girl, which
shows that she is aged about 17 years and the statements of the witnesses also shows that she is aged
about 17 years, and therefore she is in the verge of attaining the age of majority. For any reason
during the course of full dressed trial if it is shown to the Court that she has crossed 18 years then
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/21308926/

Arif S/O. Hajarat Nadaf vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 July, 2014

the Court has to ascertain whether the accused - petitioner had committed any offence as alleged
against him. In my opinion, under the above doubtful circumstances are doubtful, the petitioner is
entitled to be enlarged on bail. The petitioner is aged about 22 years and the victim girl is aged about
17 years. Perhaps due to infatuation, they might have fell in love with each other and started to enjoy
their life even prior to the marriage. This is not the case where the petitioner has to be kept in jail for
a long time. Under the above said facts and circumstances, petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following ORDER Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the petitioner
shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.90/2014 on the file of Saundatti Police
Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 366A and 376 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
and Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act, subject to the following conditions:
i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent
surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of trial Court.
ii) Petitioner shall not indulge himself in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) Petitioner shall attend the Court on every date of hearing without fail, unless
prevented by any genuine cause.
iv) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of trial Court without prior permission,
till the case registered against him is disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE hnm/

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/21308926/