Dismissed

Sri Devaraju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2022CRL.P/2191/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal court rejected a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, alleged to have committed rape, voyeurism, and circulated nude images of the victim to her relatives, was denied bail noting that circulating intimate images made the case heinous regardless of charge sheet filing.

What did the court decide?

Bail petition rejected; petitioner not enlarged on bail.

Sri Devaraju Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2191/2022

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI DEVARAJU S/O MUNIKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE CHIKKAGOLLRAHATTI, INDIRA COLONY LAKSHMIPURA, BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU-562123.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI UMESH B N, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BYADARAHALLI POLICE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.481/2021 OF BYADARAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 354B, 417, 376, 504, 506 OF IPC AND SECTION 67A OF IT ACT AND ETC.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking

¶20

regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.481/2021 of Byadarahalli Police Station, Bengaluru Rural District for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354B, 417, 376, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 67A of IT ACT.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶22

The factual matrix of the case is that the victim girl

¶23

and also this petitioner were working together and he acquainted with the family members of the petitioner and persuaded her that he would marry her and used to visit the house of the victim frequently and as against her wish, this petitioner subjected her for sexual act and the same was recorded in the mobile and used

¶24

the nude photograph and video for blackmailing her and subjected her for sexual act and also started harassing her stating that he would send the same in whatsapp and when his

¶25

¶26

torture was not bearable, on 21.11.2021, the complaint was given stating that he has sent her nude photographs and videos to her brother and also relatives around 20 to 30 persons. Based on the complaint, the case was registered and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the aforesaid offences against this petitioner.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this petitioner earlier had approached this Court for bail and the same was rejected on the ground that the matter is under investigation and an opportunity was given to the petitioner to approach this Court after filing the charge sheet and an allegation against this petitioner is that nude photographs of the victim girl were uploaded to her relatives around 20 to 30 persons and no such materials are collected by the Investigating Officer and the petitioner is in custody from the date of his arrest since investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed, the further custodial trial is not required hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶28

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that though at the

¶29

¶30

first instance regarding subjecting the victim for sexual act not stated in the complaint and during the course of investigation, the victim discloses the said fact and also discloses that this petitioner taken the nude photographs of the victim and also video graphed the sexual act committed by him with the victim and sent the same to her brother and relatives and during the course of the investigation, the mobile of the petitioner was seized and found that the same was circulated to several persons hence, this petitioner not only committed the heinous offence of subjecting the victim for sexual act and the same was video graphed and sent the same to her relatives hence, there is a prima facie case against this petitioner and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶31

Having heard the respective counsel appearing for

¶32

the parties and also on perusal of the material available on record and also looking into the contents of the complaint as well as further statement given by the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and also the material collected by the Investigating Officer it discloses that this petitioner not only subjected her for sexual act and made use of the photograph and video to

¶33

¶34

blackmail her with an intention to get consent for his heinous act of committing sexual intercourse with her and also sent the same to her relatives and brothers through mobile. Having taken note of the conduct of the petitioner, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner and mere filing of charge sheet is not a ground to enlarge him bail when heinous office is committed and circulated the same to the relatives of the victim.

¶35

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶36

following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The bail petition is rejected.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Sri Devaraju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Devaraju 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

Puneeth Kumar Vs State by

Vinod @ Bulli Vs the State of Karnataka

Kiran @ Bikku Kirana Vs State by

Venugopal K Vs the State of Karnataka

Vazeer Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Sharath Vs State of Karnataka