Karnataka HC grants bail to Bhatkal woman suspected to be foreign national after 16 months in jail
33-year-old woman was in jail with her 2.5-year-old child
Bengaluru, Nov 10: The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to a 33-year-old woman, allegedly a Pakistani national, who has spent 16 months in custody with her two-and-a-half-year-old child, after being arrested under the Foreigners Act.
Granting bail to Khatija Mehreen, who was arrested in 2021 in Uttara Kannada district, Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar said, “In the bail petition it is categorically stated that there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioner, but unfortunately is that the petitioner has become scapegoat in the hand of the complainant-police and she should not be detained in judicial custody merely on suspicion or doubt.”
A case against her is pending before the Principal Civil Judge, Bhatkal on various charges under the Foreigners Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Based on information from the Intelligence Department the police had obtained permission from the Magistrate to conduct a search operation.
On June 9, 2021, the police had conducted the search in Bhatkal. Khatija Mehreen, allegedly a Pakistani woman staying in India since 2014 was arrested. The police also seized, Aadhar card, PAN card, Ration card, Voter ID and other forged documents allegedly in her name.
The woman approached the HC seeking bail, stating that she was in custody for the last one year and four months. She claimed that she was born in Bhatkal in 1988 and studied in Naunihal Centrla School. She was married to Javeed Mohiddin who died on April 22, 2022 when she was in custody. She has three children aged 7, 5 and 2.5. The last child is with her in jail.
The HC said that she deserved to be released on bail.
“The petitioner/accused is already in judicial custody since more than 1 year 4 months and long incarceration may not be necessary as the offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life,” the HC said.
It noted that the punishment for which she was charged under Foreigners Act was punishable with maximum imprisonment for five years while the charges under IPC against her had a maximum sentence of 7 years.
“The child aged 2.5 years of the petitioner is residing with her in the prison, therefore in my view, by imposing stringent conditions the petitioner/accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail,” the HC said in its recent judgement.
However, the court made it clear that she cannot have free movement outside. “It is made clear that though the Court is enlarging the petitioner on bail, she cannot be given any free movements to wander across India as per her whims and fancies till the government decides whether she has to be deported to her mother country or not,” the HC said.
If she is convicted, “the Competent Authorities have to take appropriate steps to deport her to her mother country immediately after completing sentence,” the HC said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Actress sexual assault: Court says Prosecution 'miserably' failed to prove conspiracy against Dileep
Kochi (PTI): The prosecution had "miserably" failed to prove the conspiracy charge against Dileep in the sensational 2017 actress sexual assault case, a local court has observed while citing inconsistencies and lack of sufficient evidence against the Malayalam star.
The full judgement of Ernakulam District and Principal Sessions Court Judge Honey M Varghese was released late on Friday, and has revealed the judge also pointing out at unsustainable arguments put forth by the prosecution.
"The prosecution miserably failed to prove the conspiracy between accused No.1 (Pulsar Suni) and accused No.8 (Dileep) in executing the offence against the victim," the court held.
It examined in detail, the prosecution's allegation that Dileep had hired the prime accused to sexually assault the survivor and record visuals, including close-up footage of a gold ring she was wearing, to establish her identity.
On page 1130 of the judgment, under paragraph 703, the court framed the issue as whether the prosecution's contention that NS Sunil (Pulsar Suni) recorded visuals of the gold ring worn by the victim at the time of the occurrence, so as to clearly disclose her identity, was sustainable.
The prosecution contended Dileep and Suni had planned the recording so that the actress' identity would be unmistakable, with the video of the gold ring intended to convince Dileep that the visuals were genuine.
However, the court noted that this contention was not stated in the first charge sheet and was introduced only in the second one.
As part of this claim, a gold ring was seized after the victim produced it before the police.
The court observed that multiple statements of the victim were recorded from February 18, 2017, following the incident, and that she first raised allegations against Dileep only on June 3, 2017.
Even on that day, nothing was mentioned about filming of the ring as claimed by the prosecution, the court said.
The prosecution failed to explain why the victim did not disclose this fact at the earliest available opportunities.
It further noted that although the victim had viewed the sexual assault visuals twice, she did not mention any specific recording of the gold ring on those occasions, which remained unexplained.
The court also examined the approvers' statements.
One approver told the magistrate that Dileep had instructed Pulsar Suni to record the victim's wedding ring.
The court observed that no such wedding ring was available with her at that time.
During the trial, the approver changed his version, the court said.
The Special Public Prosecutor put a leading question to the approver on whether Dileep had instructed the recording of the ring, after which he deposed that the instruction was to record it to prove the victim's identity.
The court observed that the approver changed his account to corroborate the victim's evidence.
When the same question was put to another approver, he repeated the claim during the trial but admitted he had never stated this fact before the investigating officer.
The court noted that the second approver even went to the extent of claiming Dileep had instructed the execution of the crime as the victim's engagement was over.
This showed that the evidence of the second approver regarding the shooting of the ring was untrue, as her engagement had taken place after the crime.
The court further observed that the visuals themselves clearly revealed the victim's identity and that there was no need to capture images of the ring to establish identity.
In paragraph 887, the court examined the alleged motive behind the crime and noted that in the first charge sheet, the prosecution had claimed that accused persons 1 to 6 had kidnapped the victim with the common intention of capturing nude visuals to extort money by threatening to circulate them and there was no mention about Dileep's role in it.
The court also rejected the prosecution's claim that the accused had been planning the assault on Dileep's instructions since 2013, noting that the allegation was not supported by reliable evidence.
It similarly ruled out the claim that Suni attempted to sexually assault the victim in Goa in January 2017, stating that witness statements showed no such misconduct when he served as the driver of the vehicle used by the actress there.
The court also discussed various controversies that followed Dileep's arrest and the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, ultimately finding that the case had not been proved.
Pronouning its verdict on the sensational case on December 8, the court acquitted Dileep and three others.
Later, the court sentenced six accused, including the prime accused Suni, to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment.
The assault on the multilingual actress, after the accused allegedly forced their way into her car and held it under their control for two hours on February 17, 2017, had shocked Kerala.
Pulsar Suni sexually assaulted the actress and video recorded the act with the help of the other convicted persons in the moving car.
