SAFDAR ABBAS ZAIDI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a private employee, resident of Burg Dubai, by name Safdar Abbas Zaidi represented by his father Khaleem Akthar Abid Zaidi as G.P.A. holder maintained the present anticipatory bail application in Cr.No.115 of 2018 of Malkajgiri Police Station, Rachakonda district, Telangana State, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 420 IPC. Earlier with self-same array, he filed anticipatory bail application in Crl.P.No.4825 of 2018 and the same was by detailed order running in 15 paragraphs with 9 pages ended in dismissal on 09.07.2018 with observation of the same not a bar for future bail application from showing of any changed circumstances, no doubt to consider on own merits and that he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail from the propensity of the crime which prima facie makes out the offence alleged u/sec.376 IPC among others and thereby the contentions of he is an employee and likelihood of loosing job if he is arrested cannot be outweighed in the consideration over the sufferance of the victim.

(2.) After said dismissal order dt.09.07.2018, the present anticipatory bail application is filed within one month on 08.08.2018 with 8 paragraphs of averments by reproducing the complaint in gist, the ingredients of Section 376IPC and expressions of the Apex Court in Kaini Rajan Vs. State of Kerala, (2013) 9 SCC 113 , and Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Kerala, (2014) 5 SCC 678 , referring to earlier expressions in State of HP Vs. Mango Ram, (2000) 7 SCC 224 and Deelip Singh Vs. State of Bihar, (2005) 1 SCC 88 besides the guidelines for anticipatory bail laid down at para-112 of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 and Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat, (2016) 1 SCC 152 and ultimately at paras-7 and 8 of the bail application stated there is no specific averments in the occurrence of rape or any other averment of any possible date or time it had occurred and the conduct of the defacto-complainant and her mother (not arrayed therein) as 2nd respondent to the bail application is systematically paranoid, and shows pattern of distress and suspiciousness such that the others motives are interpreted as malevolent and such persons are known to harbour severe antagonism and such persons suffering with paranoid personality disorder, and individuals with this disorder are generally difficult to get along with and often have problems with close relations because of their excessive suspiciousness and hostility and unable to collaborate well with others at work and their combative and suspicious nature may elicit a hostile response in others, which then serves to confirm their original expectations. They are often rigid, and critical by they never accept criticism about themselves, and this causes significant impairment in academic, occupational and/or social functioning. It is further submitted that he is never in India and the question that he is absconding in misleading does not arise.

(3.) In fact, in the bail application from the earlier dismissal order referredto the date of filingas to any worth changed circumstances mentioned. Even in the course of hearing nothing could be brought to the notice of the Court of any changed circumstances but for placed reliance in addition to the decisions referredin the bail application, the expressions of the Apex Court in Pradeep Kumar Verma Vs. State of Bihar, (2007) 7 SCC 413, Tilakraj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2016) 4 SCC 140 and a single judge expression of Maharashtra High Court in anticipatory bail application No.2221 of 2016, dt.09.01.2017 in Akshay Manoj Jaisinghani Vs. State of Maharashtra.