w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Tanveer Ahmed v/s State Women Police Station, Rep. State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore

Company & Directors' Information:- AHMED AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27320DL1997PTC086861

Company & Directors' Information:- T AHMED & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51900WB1947PTC014930

Company & Directors' Information:- M S AHMED & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1932PTC007608

Company & Directors' Information:- J. AHMED AND COMPANY LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999MH1954PLC009225

    Criminal Petition No. 2587 of 2020 (438)

    Decided On, 23 June 2020

    At, High Court of Karnataka


    For the Petitioner: H. Dayananda Saraswathi, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mahesh Shetty, HCGP.

Judgment Text

(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed Under Section 438 Cr.P.C praying to this Hon'ble court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.20/2020 of women P.S., Shivamogga for the offence punishable under Sections 504,354d,506 of IPC and etc.,)

Through Video Conference:

1. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before Sessions Court at Shivamogga seeking relief of anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.20/2020 for the offence under Sections 504, 354(D) and 506 IPC. The same was rejected in Crl. Misc.No.199/2020 on 09.03.2020 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Shivamogga. Hence, the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2. It seems there was a proposal for alliance between the petitioner and complainant way-back in the year 2016 and it did not materialize as contended by the petitioner. In this backdrop, complainant alleged that petitioner was harassing when complainant was studying during the years 2016-2020 in one or the other mode. In the complaint it is alleged that in the year 2016, petitioner is stated to have threatened the complainant that he would throw acid. Further, he was also harassing the complainant over telephone. It was further alleged that similar harassment was meted out by the complainant on 22.08.2017 so also in the years 2018 and 2019. On 13.01.2020 at about 3.30 PM, petitioner is alleged to have transmitted obscenely edited photos of the complainant. Further, petitioner has abused the complainant wherein he has threatened with the complainant's life.

3. The trial Court examined the complaint so also the provisions of Section 354(D) IPC and passed a detailed order rejecting the petitioner's petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that alleged allegations stated in the FIR are false. There is no substance that apart allegations relates from the years 2016 to 2020.

5. Whether allegations are false or not is required to be examined during the course of investigation. Prima facie, petitioner has threatened the complainant alleging that he would throw acid on the complainant and further, threatened for life also. Even though, allegations relating to throwing of acid is in the year 2016 at the same time, one cannot lose sight relating to the allegations from 2016 to 2020. In this regard, electronic evidences are required to be examined since most of the allegations are with reference to electronic mode. The alleged offence relating to Section 354(D) is heinous crime.

6. Having regard to the gravity of the crime, character of evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the complainant, the likelihood of the accused fleeing

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

from justice and every possibility of threatening the complainant or repeating the offence, possibility of tampering with the complainant/witnesses and obstructing the course of justice, petitioner has not made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.