Allowed

Swamy @ Vinayaswamy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Jul 2021CRL.P/3901/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CrPC No.3901/2021 where petitioner sought bail in IPC offences including rape and extortion. Court noted investigation complete but consent to medical exam lacking. Held bail granted under Section 439 CrPC subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on obtaining bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties subject to conditions not to commit offences, threaten witnesses, and appear when required.

Swamy @ Vinayaswamy Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3901/2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SWAMY @ VINAYASWAMY S/O LATE KONDAIAH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT KOMMEGOWDANAKOPPALU VILLAGE BILIKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT PIN-571 105.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.BASAVARAJU.T.A., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMANAGARA WOMAN POLICE STATION RAMANAGARA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDI AT BANGALORE-PIN-560 001.

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI.ABHIJITH.K.S., HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING THIS COURT TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.37/2020 (S.C.NO.6/2021) OF RAMANAGAR WOMEN P.S., RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376,354(C),384,506,420 OF IPC.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.37/2020 of Ramanagar Women Police Station, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 354C, 384, 506, 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

¶20

Heard Sri.Basavarju.T.A., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Abhijith.K.S., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶22

that the petitioner is the sole accused. He is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. According to the informant, the incident had taken place

¶23

¶24

on 05.08.2020, but the first information came to be registered belatedly on 12.08.2020 and there is absolutely no reason for the inordinate delay in lodging the first information. The petitioner was apprehended on 16.09.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed for the aforesaid offences. Since the investigation is already completed, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. There is absolutely no material to constitute the offence under Section 376 of IPC. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title of the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶25

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. The petitioner has committed

¶26

¶27

forcible sexual assault and started blackmailing the victim demanding Rs.50,000/-. The mobile and the earphone were recovered at the instance of the present petitioner which belong to the son of the victim. Investigation is completed and chargesheet is filed which makes out a strong prima facie material to constitute the offences. Even the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C is recorded. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶28

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶29

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶30

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶31

My answer to the above point is in the ‘Affirmative’ for

the following:

R E A S O N S

The materials placed on record before this

¶36

Court discloses prima facie case constitute the above said offences. At this stage, it cannot be concluded that there was consensual relationship between the victim and the accused. However, it is noticed that the victim has not consented for medical examination. Admittedly, the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody is not required, for any other purposes except to ensure the presence of the petitioner before the Trial Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶37

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶38

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petition is allowed.

¶41

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.37/2020 of Ramnagar Women Police Station on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶42

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶43

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶44

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

RKA

Swamy @ Vinayaswamy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swamy @ Vinayaswamy v. 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

Mr Shivakumar Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Ali Akbar @ Ali Umar Vs State of Karnataka

Ramanna @ Ramachandraiah Vs State by Excise Police

Mallikarjun @ Malli Vs State by Kothanur

Sri Mohammed Aleemulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Siddanath Gangadhar Lavate Vs the State of Karnataka