High Court dismissed the second successive bail petition of a foreign national accused of rape under IPC Section 376, holding that no changed circumstance existed justifying bail despite allegations of variance in the scene of offence.
Petition dismissed; trial to be expedited.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.P.No.6708/2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6708/2021
BETWEEN :
MR.JOEL KOMANDA BAMBALE S/O EMMANUEL KOMANDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.96, 2ND MAIN 2ND CROSS, MUNIKALLAPPA ROAD R.S.PALYA, KAMMANAHALLI BANGALORE – 560 084
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI.RAJ PRABHU S, ADV.)
AND :
THE STATE BY HENNUR POLICE STATION HENNUR, BANGALORE – 560 084 REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.ROHITH B J, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C. NO.1637/2019 (CR.NO.201/2019) OF HENNUR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 342, 323, 376 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.P.No.6708/2021
2
O R D E R
This is the second successive bail petition of the accused in Crime No.201/2019 of Hennur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 376 of IPC which is now pending in S.C.No.1637/2019 on the file of the LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-54).
Crl.P.No.6708/2021
3
registration card, the spot mahazar and the version of CW.1 regarding the same.
1 ( 2018)12 SCC 129
Crl.P.No.6708/2021
4
accused being in custody for more than one year is not a relevant consideration in considering the application for bail.
For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any changed circumstance enabling the petitioner of
bail. Therefore the petition is dismissed.
The trial Court is hereby requested to expedite the
trial and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/JUDGE
akc
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there have been any changed circumstances in the second successive bail petition of the accused for offences under IPC Sections 323, 342 and 376 to enlarge him on bail.
Whether the variance in the version of the victim regarding the scene of offence and the difference in the spot mahazar warrants the grant of bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and anotherDistinguished¶29
Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2018)12 SCC 129 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr. Joel Komanda Bamble
The State
K.S. Mudagal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
