Allowed

Sri Sunil v. the State by

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2016CRL.P/5527/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted bail to the petitioner in a criminal petition filed under Section 439 CrPC. The petitioner was accused of offences under IPC sections 372, 373, 366A and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The court allowed bail by parity of reasoning with another co-accused.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was enlarged on bail on executing a self bond of Rs.50,000 with a surety, subject to conditions regarding witness tampering, court attendance, jurisdiction, and cooperation with investi

Sri Sunil Vs the State by — Child Custody and Guardianship | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5527 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. Sunil, Son of Raghu, Aged about 20 years, Presently residing at No.10, Daminodu Indiramma Colony, Tirupati, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh. Permanent Address: Kambihalli Village, Santhiry Hobli, Chikkamagaloor 577 101. Karnataka.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Smt. Pooja Kattimani, Advocate for Shri M. Chidananda, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The State by Bagepalli Police, Represented by

¶13

¶14

State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(By Shri B. Visweswaraiah, Government Pleader)

¶17

¶18

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Spl.S.C.No.26/2016 (Crime No. 8/2016) of Bagepalli Police Station, Chickballapura District, for the offence punishable under Sections 372, 373, 366A of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act.

¶19

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the

¶22

learned Government Pleader.

¶23

It was the case of the complainant that she was a girl

¶24

of 15, who had run away from home since her mother had

¶25

scolded her. She came to Thirupati and met the petitioner, who introduced her to one Latha and told the complainant that Latha would get her a job. Latha took her to Bagepalli. It transpires

¶26

¶27

that Latha was an evil woman, who pushed her into prostitution. The girl somehow managed to escape and boarded the bus. The bus conductor took pity on her after learning about her situation and had taken the trouble to take her to the police station and the girl lodged a complaint. It is thereafter that the petitioner and others have been arraigned as accused on the basis of the complaint.

¶28

According to the allegations, it is not the petitioner who has committed offences punishable under Sections 372,

¶29

373, 366A. etc.. In any event, Latha, who was the main culprit, in having pushed the complainant into prostitution has been enlarged on bail by this court in Criminal Petition No.2024/2016 dated 4.10.2016.

¶30

Since the petitioner would stand on a better footing, by parity of reasoning, the petitioner is entitled to bail.

¶31

The petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged

¶32

on bail on his executing a self bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/-

¶33

¶34

with a surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the court below subject to the following conditions:-

¶35

(i) The petitioner shall not tamper or prevail upon the

¶36

prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶37

(ii) The petitioner shall attend the court on all dates of

¶38

hearing.

¶39

(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the

¶40

court below without prior permission.

¶41

(iv) the petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigating

Authority.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sri Sunil v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sunil v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri P Subrahmanyam Vs Smt P Aishwarya Lakshmi

Nagaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

The State by State Public Prosecutor Vs M/S. Chirag Mangaluru Builders & Developers Pvt.

Sri Guruprasad Vs Smt. Manju Bhargavi R

Sri.H.K. Dharmappa Vs State by

Smt Dr Vijayalakshmi P Vs State of Karnataka