Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Sri Umesha

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2021CRL.P/8199/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The State sought cancellation of bail granted in a POCSO/IPC case alleging the trial court erred in not considering the offence's seriousness. The High Court found the trial court had considered the seriousness, no conditions were breached, and the trial was nearly complete, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition for cancellation of bail dismissed. Bail granted to respondent affirmed.

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Umesha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8199 OF 2020

¶5

BETWEEN :

¶6

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MYSURU SOUTH POLICE STATION, MYSURU,

¶7

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

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

¶10

AND :

¶11

SRI UMESHA S/O BASAVANNA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS RESIDENT OF BEERIHUNDI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 001

¶12

… RESPONDENT (BY SRI.VINAYA KEERTHI M., ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C BY THE S.P.P FOR THE STATE PRAYING THIS COURT TO CANCEL THE ORDER DATED 10.04.2019 IN CRL.MISC.NO.318/2019 ON THE FILE FO THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSURU THEREBY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED U/S 439 OF CRPC AND RELEASING THEM ON BAIL IN CR.NO.11/2019 OF MYSURU SOUTH POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 376(3) OF IPC AND SEC.5(L) ,6 OF POCSO ACT AND DIRECT THAT THE RESPONDENT TO BE ARRESTED AND COMMITTED TO CUSTODY.

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner-State is before this Court seeking cancellation of bail granted by the learned VI Additional District & Special Judge, Mysuru vide order dated 10.04.2019 passed in Crl.Misc.No.318/2019 and to permit the petitioner to take the respondentaccused into custody pending in Crime No.11/2019 of Mysuru South Police Station registered for the

¶18

¶19

offences punishable under Sections 376(3) of IPC and under Sections 5(L) & 6 of POCSO Act.

¶20

Heard Sri. K.S. Abhijith, learned High Court

¶21

Government Pleader for the petitioner-state and the learned counsel for respondent-accused.

¶22

Learned High Court Government Pleader

¶23

submits that the respondent herein was granted bail subject to conditions by the learned VI Additional District & Special Judge, Mysuru, in Crl.Misc.No.318/2019 vide order dated 10.04.2019.

¶24

Challenging the said order, petitioner is invoking the concurrent jurisdiction of this Court for cancellation of

¶25

bail. He submits that no grounds are made out to enlarge the respondent on bail, looking to the seriousness of the offences. It is alleged that the victim was hardly 15 years of age at the time of the incident. The statement of the victim girl under

¶26

¶27

Sections 161 & 164 were recorded, wherein she has fully supported the case of the prosecution. However, without considering the seriousness of the offence, the learned VI Additional District & Special Judge, Mysuru granted bail in favour of the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.318/2019 vide order dated 10.04.2019. Looking to the seriousness of the offence, in the light of the tender age of the victim, the respondent was not entitled for grant of bail. Therefore, the State has filed this petition seeking cancellation of the bail by setting aside the order passed by the learned Special Judge granting bail in favour of the respondent.

¶28

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that even though serious allegations are made against the respondent, learned Special judge considered the merits of the case and ordered for release of the petitioner on bail subject to conditions vide order dated 10.04.2019. The

¶29

¶30

respondent has never violated any of the conditions imposed while enlarging him on bail. He is regularly attending the Court during the trial. The trial is almost completed before the trial Court. Under such circumstances, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶31

The materials on record discloses that

¶32

serious allegations are made against the respondent herein, who is the accused in the criminal case for having committed the offence punishable under Section 376(3) of IPC and under Sections 5(L) & 6 of POCSO Act. However, considering the merits of the case, the learned Special Judge granted bail in favour of the respondent vide order dated 10.04.2019 in Crl.Misc.No.318/2019. It is the contention of the prosecution that seriousness of the offence is not considered by the learned Special Judge while granting bail in favour of the respondent. However, on going through the order passed by the learned

¶33

¶34

Special Judge, it is seen that the Court has considered the seriousness of the offence and it was held that the respondent is not required to be detained in custody. It is submitted before the Court that the trial in the case is almost completed and the same is not disputed. Further, it is not the contention of the prosecution that the respondent has violated any of the conditions that are imposed by the Special Court while enlarging the accused on bail. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to entertain the petition.

¶35

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

The State of Karnataka v. Sri Umesha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Sri Umesha

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

Rahul Kumar @ Chote Lal @ Lal Vs State of Karnataka

Sahil Mohammed Vs the State by

Sri. Mehboob Khan Vs State by Holenarsipura Town Police Station

Syed Suhail @ Suhail @ Papaya Vs State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Sharukh Khan

Smt Eramma Vs the State of Karnataka