MR. FAYAZ v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

#1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO, J. P. NAGAR PS, BENGALURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU CITY, PIN-560 001.

#2. MALINI. M D/O. MURUGAN, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1345, 1ST FLOOR, 43RD BLOCK, VIVEKANANDA VASATI, - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:3511 CRL.A No. 2289 of 2023 SANKEERNA, J. P. NAGAR 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1; R2 HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED 25.01.2024.) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED ON BAIL IN CR.NO.315/2023 DATED 27.10.2023 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 354(c) OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(W)(i),3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AMENDMENT ACT 2015 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT / J.P NAGAR POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, AND SPL.JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 20.11.2023 IN CRL.MISC.NO.10809/2023 PASSED BY LXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-71). THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT

#1. This appeal is filed by appellant - accused praying to set aside the order dated 20.11.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 10809/2023 passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder the bail petition of the appellant - accused sought in crime No. 315/2023 of J.P. Nagar Police Station for the offence under Section 354(C) of IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of SC ST (POA) Act, 1989 came to be rejected. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:3511 CRL.A No. 2289 of 2023

#2. Heard learned counsel for appellant - accused and learned HCGP for respondent No. 1. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained unrepresented.

#3. Case of the prosecution is that on 27.10.2023 respondent No. 2 went to her bath room to take bath and at that time her younger brother was sleeping in the house at about 10.30 am. At that time, she saw somebody was recording her taking bath through a mobile having red colour pouch through the window and she screamed and that person ran away from the spot. Immediately respondent No.2 intimated the same to her younger brother and as the main door of her opposite house was open, they caught hold of this appellant - accused and handed over to the Police and filed complaint. Case has been registered against this appellant - accused for offence under Section 354(C) of IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of SC ST (POA) Act, 1989. The appellant - accused who was in judicial custody filed Crl. Misc. No. 10809/2023 seeking bail and same came to - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:3511 CRL.A No. 2289 of 2023 be rejected by the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal.

#4. Learned counsel for appellant - accused would contend that the offence alleged against appellant - accused is not a heinous offence. Mobile phone of the appellant - accused has been seized and in the remand application it is stated that the appellant - accused is not required for further investigation. He contends that major portion of the investigation is over and therefore, the appellant - accused is not required for custodial interrogation. He further submits that the punishment for offence under Section 354(C) is imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but, which may extend up to 3 years and fine. He further submits that without considering all these aspects, learned Special/Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order which requires interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to the appellant - accused. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:3511 CRL.A No. 2289 of 2023

#5. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that the offence alleged against appellant - accused is a heinous offence. The appellant - accused tried to record the video in his mobile of the complainant taking bath. The complainant belongs to schedule caste. Investigation is in progress. Considering aspects learned Sessions/Special Judge has rightly passed the impugned order which does not call for any interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

#6. Having heard learned counsel for appellant - accused and learned HCGP this Court has gone through impugned order, FIR, complaint and remand application.

#7. The accusation leveled against this appellant - accused is that he tried to record in his mobile phone the complainant taking bath in her bath room. The complainant belongs schedule caste. On arrest of this appellant - accused his mobile phone has been seized. Whether the said mobile phone contains the video of the victim taking bath is a matter of investigation and trial. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:3511 CRL.A No. 2289 of 2023 The offence alleged is not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. Major portion of the investigation is over and therefore, the appellant - accused is not required for custodial interrogation. Without considering all these aspects learned Sessions/Special Judge has passed the impugned order which requires interference by this Court.

#8. The appellant - accused has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail. In the result, the following; O R D E R The Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated

20.11.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. no. 10809/2023 passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and sessions Judge, Bengaluru is hereby set aside. The appellant - accused is granted bail in crime No. 315/2023 of J.P. Nagar Police Station subject to the following conditions: I. The appellant - accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:3511 CRL.A No. 2289 of 2023 II. The appellant - accused shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses. III. The appellant - accused shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the investigation. IV. The appellant - accused shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing, unless exempted, and cooperate in speedy disposal of the case. SD/- JUDGE LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7