Partly allowed

Rahul P S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2016CRL.P/6265/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court fixed bail for Petitioner 1 (accused no. 3) on self-bond with surety, granting parity with other accused. The court condoned the filing of a duplicate petition by Petitioner 2 due to the counsel's oversight and lack of malice. Bail granted for offences under POCSO Act IPC and IT.P. Act.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed; enlarged on bail on self-bond of Rs.30,000 plus surety, subject to standard bail conditions including non-tampering of witnesses and attendance at hearings.

Rahul P S Vs the State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | 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.6265 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Rahul P.S., Son of Pashupal, Aged about 29 years, No.15, Ragi Bhavan, Nedumpan Post, Kollam,

¶9

Kerala State 691 001.

¶10

Ashiq, Son of Denial, Aged about years, Residing at Melemadom House, Kalladikkodu, Palakkadu, Kerala State 678 001.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(By Shri Naveen Kumara P., Advocate)

¶13

¶14

AND:

¶15

The State of Karnataka, By Commercial Street Police, Bangalore City. Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(By Shri B. Visweswaraiah, Government Pleader)

¶18

¶19

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime 215/2015 of Commercial Street Police Station, Bangalore for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of POCSO Act and Sections 376, 370, 370(A), read with 120(B) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of I.T.P. Act.

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

It is noticed that the second petitioner had already filed a

¶23

petition in Cr.P.5834/2016 and without bringing the same to the notice of this court of such petition having been filed, the present petition is filed.

¶24

¶25

The learned Counsel for the petitioners, when the

¶26

matter was taken up for orders, has non-chalantly stated that the petition insofar as petitioner no.2 may be dismissed and it was stated that he had been granted bail. This court has taken exception at this statement that the petition could be filed and on such suppression of filing the same, a second petition could also be filed and non-chalantly sought to be withdrawn. The explanation for this dual proceedings is that the present petition was filed at the instance of the mother of petitioner no.2, which is not apparent from the record. The mother is present before the court and would state that it was at her instance that the petition was filed and she was unaware of the earlier petition filed by her son. This ought to have been stated by the counsel for the petitioner, which unfortunately is not forthcoming and is only now revealed. Therefore, the seeming irregularity is condoned.

¶27

¶28

Since all the other accused have been granted bail, by

¶29

parity of reasoning, petitioner no.1, who is arraigned as accused no.3, is also granted bail on the following terms and conditions:

¶30

The petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a self bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/with a surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the court

¶31

below, subject to the following conditions:-

¶32

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

¶33

prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

court below without prior permission.

¶37

(iv) the petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigating

Authority.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Rahul P S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul P S v. the State of Karnataka

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 Sunil Vs the State by

Sri.H.K. Dharmappa Vs State by