Dismissed

Renuka Prasad v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2020CRL.P/5650/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a third successive bail petition filed under Cr.P.C. S. 439 by an accused charged with kidnapping and sexual assault under IPC and POCSO. Rejecting the grounds of witness hostility and prolonged custody, the Court held bail was not entitled.

What did the court decide?

The petition for bail is dismissed; the petitioner remains in judicial custody.

Renuka Prasad Vs the State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.P.No.5650/2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5650/2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RENUKA PRASAD S/O MANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT B.M.ROAD NEAR DISTRICT SUB-JAIL HASSAN- 573 201 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI B.M.KRISHNE GOWDA, FOR SMT.SHIVAMMA.D., ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE BY PEENYA POLICE HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001 ...RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.762/2017 (SPL.C.C.NO.148/2018) OF PEENYA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 366, 376 OF IPC AND SECTION 5(L) AND 6 OF THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.P.No.5650/2020

O R D E R

This is third successive petition of the petitioner seeking bail in Crime No.762/2017 of Peenya police station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC and Sections 5(L) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 which is now pending for trial in Spl.C.C.148/2018 on the file of the LIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH-55) Bengaluru.

¶19

It was alleged that on 08.12.2017 the petitioner kidnapped the victim girl ‘X’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘X’ for the purpose of confidentiality) aged 17 years from the custody of her parents and took her to Mysore and held her hostage upto 14.12.2017. It was further alleged that during such stay, he committed repeated penetrative sexual assault on her.

¶20

Crl.P.No.3144/2018 filed by the petitioner was

¶21

dismissed on 02.07.2018 as withdrawn. His another petition in Crl.P.No.6301/2018 was rejected by this Court on 03.12.2018 considering the merits of the matter.

¶22

Crl.P.No.5650/2020

¶23

¶24

Therefore the petitioner is entitled to bail only if there is any change in the circumstances.

¶25

According to the petitioner, the following are the changed circumstances:

¶26

(i) X was examined as PW.1 and she has turned

¶27

hostile;

¶28

(ii) X is happily married to some other person and living in her matrimonial home; &

¶29

(iii) Petitioner is in Judicial Custody since long time.

¶30

This Court in Crl.P.No.6301/2018 while rejecting the petition observed that the statement of X before the Magistrate and her medical examination report were incriminating. The deposition of X dated 13.06.2019 at page 4 shows that she admitted that she was produced before the Magistrate and has given her statement. She also admitted her signature on Ex.P19 the statement. Later, she has turned hostile.

¶31

The witness turning hostile substantiates the

¶32

apprehension of prosecution that witnesses may be tampered. Apart from that, the medical officer who

¶33

Crl.P.No.5650/2020

¶34

¶35

examined X has deposed that X gave history of sexual assault by the petitioner. The Magistrate who recorded the statement of X is yet to be examined. Therefore, X turning hostile itself or she being married to some other person are not grounds to grant bail.

¶36

Having regard to the nature of the offence, mere incarceration of the petitioner itself does not entitle him for grant of bail as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi)¹ . Therefore the petition is dismissed.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

KSR

¶39

1 (2018) 12 SCC 129

Renuka Prasad v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renuka Prasad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumara G H Vs State by

Mukthiyar Ahamed @ Mukthiyar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri v Chandrashekar Vs Sri N Venkatachalapathi

Sri Virupakshaiah Vs Smt. Bhagyamma

Sri B Prakash Vs Sri Shivanayaka

T R Srinivasaiah Vs Chikkamagaluru District