Disposed

Sri.Akshay S/O Ashok Kammar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2020CRL.P/101064/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a single-page order, the High Court of Karnataka Single Judge did not decide the bail petition itself. Instead, the judge directed the petitioner to file separate bail applications in the Sessions Court for the two distinct crimes involved.

What did the court decide?

Direction to approach the Sessions Court and file separate petitions seeking relief for bail in the respective crimes.

Sri.Akshay S/O Ashok Kammar Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶5

CRL.P. NO. 101064 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.AKSHAY S/O ASHOK KAMMAR AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: LABOR, R/O: AT-POST: TALAVAYI, DIST: DHARWAD-582208.

¶8

(BY SRI.S. R. HEGDE. ADV.)

¶9

AND

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY THE HIGH COURT ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, BENCH AT DHARWAD, THROUGH DHARWAD WOMEN POLICE STATION,

¶11

(BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN DHARWAD MAHILA P.S.CRIME NO.40/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376 OF IPC AND SECTION 4 OF POCSO ACT, AS THE BAIL PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN DHARWAD RURAL P.S.CRIME NO.101/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 341, 354, 504, 506, 149 OF IPC, WHICH IS DISMISSED BY INCLUDING DHARWAD MAHILA P.S.CRIME NO.40/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE – A.

¶13

¶14

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶17

seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in respect of Crime No.40/2020 of Mahila Police Station, Dharwad registered for the offence under Section 376 of IPC

¶18

and Section 4 of POCSO Act, as well as to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.101/2020 of Dharwad Rural Police Station registered for the offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 341, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶19

Crime No.101/2020 of Dharwad Rural Police

¶20

Station was registered against the petitioner and 12 others, on the complaint lodged by one Kasturi Aralihonda W/o.Manjappa in respect of an incident occurred on 09.06.2020 at about 6 p.m., wherein it is alleged that on the previous night petitioner/accused

¶21

¶22

No.1 forcibly took her minor daughter towards backyard of their house and in this regard, on the next day i.e. on 09.06.2020 at about 6 p.m., when they went to the house of the petitioner herein to question his act, the petitioner as well as other accused persons assaulted her husband Manjappa and others and abused and threatened them with dire consequences etc.

¶23

Insofar as Crime No.40/2020 of Dharwad Women Police Station is concerned the said case is registered on the complaint lodged by the minor victim girl against this petitioner alleging that on 08.06.2020 at about 9.30 pm, when she was sleeping in the house, this petitioner gained entry into her house, held her mouth and took her to the backyard and committed forcible penetrative sexual assault on

¶24

her.

¶25

¶26

It is submitted that the accused-petitioner

¶27

has been arrested on 06.07.2020 and he is in judicial custody since then.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is delay in lodging the complaint and this is a false case filed against the petitioner. He

¶29

further submits that accused No.2 to 12 in Crime No.101/2020 are already enlarged on anticipatory bail and seeks to allow this petition.

¶30

The bail petition filed by the accused-

¶31

petitioner has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 11.08.2020. Perusal of the order goes to show that though the order was passed in respect of Crime No.101/2020, the learned Sessions Judge after referring to the cases registered against the petitioner in both the crime numbers, has rejected the petition. It is not forthcoming as to whether the

¶32

¶33

petitioner has filed any petition separately to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.40/2020.

¶34

Learned HCGP submits that charge sheet has

¶35

been filed in respect of Crime No.40/2020 registered at Dharwad Women Police Station, against the petitioner under Sections 363, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. He submits that in respect of Crime No.101/2020 of Dharwad Rural Police Station, investigation is still pending.

¶36

Having heard both the learned counsel and having perused the material on record, I deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the Sessions Court and file separate petitions seeking similar relief. In that event, the learned Sessions Judge shall consider the petitions separately as expeditiously as possible keeping in view that the

¶37

¶38

petitioner is in judicial custody and dispose of the petitions in accordance with law.

¶39

With the above observations, the petition is

¶40

disposed of.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

lad

Sri.Akshay S/O Ashok Kammar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Akshay S/O Ashok Kammar 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

Basayya S/O Mallayya Chikkamath Vs the State of Karnataka

Hadapada Basavaraj S/O Hadapada Yerriswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath S/O Narayana Bandekar Vs the State of Karnataka

K M Gurubasavaraj S/O Marularadhya Vs the State of Karnataka

Gutteppa S/O Bhimappa Karibheemannanavar Vs State of Karnataka

Sagar S/O Chandrakanth Talpankar Vs the State of Karnataka