Dismissed

Sri Bojegowda v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2020CRL.P/3926/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a successive bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner charged with repeated rape of a mentally retarded woman sought release citing age and victim vulnerability. The Single Judge rejected the plea, holding bail inappropriate given the heinous nature of the offence, prima facie evidence, and the petitioner's history of withdrawn applications.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application for enlargement on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

Sri Bojegowda Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

Crl..P.No.3926/2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3926 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Sri Bojegowda S/o late Karigowda @ Channaviregowda, Aged about 66 years, R/o Korategeredoddy Village, Mullahalli Post, Uyyamballi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District-562119.

¶10

... Petitioner

¶11

(By Sri.Shiva Swamy, Advocate)

¶12

AND:

¶13

The State of Karnataka, By Kodihalli Police, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District-562119. Rep. by SPP, High Court Building, Bangalore-560001.

¶14

... Respondent

¶15

(By Sri.K.Nageshwarappa,HCGP)

¶16

This Criminal Petition is filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.12/2019 of Kodihalli P.S., Ramanagara for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 506, 201, 202 read with 34 of IPC.

Crl..P.No.3926/2020

This criminal petition coming on for orders, through video conference, this day, the court made the following:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this court seeking for grant of bail in crime No.12/2019 registered by Kodihalli police station, Ramanagara for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 376, 506, 201, 202 read with Section 34 of IPC now pending on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Kanakapura in C.C.No.251/2020.

¶23

This is a successive bail petition inasmuch as the first petition in Crl.P.No.5070/2019 is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail has been rejected by this Court vide detailed order dated 14.10.2019. Subsequently, the petition in Crl.P.No.369/2020 was filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. which came to be withdrawn on 02.03.2020. Thereafter, another petition came to be filed in Crl.P.No.2280/2020 which also came to be

¶24

Crl..P.No.3926/2020

¶25

¶26

withdrawn on 04.06.2020. The present application is filed seeking for interim relief for the petitioner on account of the prevailing covid -19 pandemic. The petitioner is once again before this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶27

The case of the prosecution is that on 21.08.2019, the respondent police has received a complaint through post by one Sri. K.L.Raju alleging that the petitioner herein had committed the offence of continuous rape on the sister of the complainant who is mentally retarded. When she become pregnant she revealed about the incident that had happened and how the petitioner had raped her on several occasions and threatened her not to inform anyone else.

¶28

It has been further alleged that in order to cover up the issue, the petitioner also agreed to make a payment of Rs.4 lakhs to the said complainant and his sister which was so paid by way of issuance of cheque which, when presented was dishonoured on

¶29

Crl..P.No.3926/2020

¶30

¶31

account of the instructions by the petitioner for ‘stop

¶32

payment’.

¶33

Sri. Shivaswany, learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that the victim being mentally retarded she was not in a position to give statement as regards allegation of rape committed on her and her statement cannot be relied upon as she admittedly is mentally retarded. On these grounds, the petitioner being 65 years of age and being in judicial custody, ought to be enlarged on bail.

¶34

Sri. K.Nageswarappa, learned HCGP opposes the grant of bail contending that a heinous offence committed by the petitioner. The charge sheet has already been laid. There are no changed circumstances which could entitle the petitioner for bail before this Court and as such, seeks for dismissal of the above petition.

¶35

Crl..P.No.3926/2020

¶36

¶37

Heard Sri. Shivaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K. Nageswarappa, the learned HCGP for respondent-State. Perused the papers.

¶38

This is a case of sixty six years old man committing repeated rape on a 35 years old mentally retarded woman. The said offence came to light only when the mentally retarded women became pregnant and on repeated enquiry by the family members the story that has happened came at. In order to cover the offence, the petitioner had made payment of Rs.4 lakhs by way of issuance of cheque towards the same before panchayat which was conducted. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner even had the audacity to give instruction for stop payment of cheque, which was then dishonored. The petitioner having approached this Court thrice. On one occasion the request for bail was rejected by a detailed order and on two other occasions, the petitions were withdrawn.

¶39

Crl..P.No.3926/2020

¶40

¶41

Though Sri. Shivaswmay, learned counsel for the petitioner make a fervent request that the age of the petitioner being 66 years, he should not be in judicial custody, I am of the considered opinion that the offences which were involved herein namely rape of 35 years of mentally retarded women is very heinous if proved. The charge sheet already having been laid and prima-facie evidence of involvement of the petitioner coupled with the issuance of cheque being dishonoured on account of stop payment instruction, I am of the considered opinion that the release of the petitioner on bail would not be in the interest of the

¶42

society and of the criminal justice system.

¶43

Hence, the petition is rejected .

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

SSD

Sri Bojegowda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Bojegowda 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

B a Harish Gowda Vs Ravi Kumar

Mr Joel Preetham Dsouza Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravi Muniyappa @ Ravi M @ Vs the State Government of Karnataka

Sri. Suresh Vs State of Karnataka

Gurav Rajendra Mittal Vs Sakshi Mittal

Smt Archana Swamy P Vs the State of Karnataka