Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Sri Nagaraja

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2022CRL.P/2388/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed by the State under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. to cancel bail granted to the respondent in a case involving offences under IPC and POCSO. The Court noted contradictory statements by the victim and held that it could not cancel bail based solely on this disparity.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition praying to cancel the bail order dated 16.05.2020 was rejected.

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Nagaraja — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2388/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHIRVA POLICE BENGALURU REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI NAGARAJA S/O RAJA R/AT GIRINAGAR KUNJARUGIRI, KURKAL VILLAGE UDUPI DISTRICT-576101

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(RESPONDENT SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 (2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO CANCEL THE ORDER DATED 16.05.2020 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSION/SPECIAL JUDGE AT UDUPI IN CR.NO.48/2020 OF SHIRVA POLICE STATION, UDUPI REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376 OF IPC AND SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT AND ETC.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. praying to cancel the order dated 16.05.2020 passed by the Principal Session/Special Judge at Udupi in Cr.No.48/2020 of Shirva Police Station, Udupi registered for the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act.

¶20

Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.

¶21

The factual matrix of the case is that the State has moved this matter for cancellation of bail granted by the Trial Court on the ground that the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, the victim girl stated against this respondent that she was subjected for sexual act but at the time of recording her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, she has stated that she voluntarily went along with the respondent herein and the Trial Court has failed to take note of Section 29 of POCSO Act wherein

¶22

¶23

presumption arises and hence, it requires interference of this Court invoking Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.

¶24

Having heard the learned High Court Government

¶25

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and taking note of the factual aspects of the case, the victim girl herself made the statement before the learned Magistrate that she was not subjected to any sexual act and only on the ground that there are contrary statements of the victim under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C, this Court cannot exercise the powers under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition to invoke Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C to cancel the bail.

¶26

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶27

following:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petition is rejected.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

The State of Karnataka v. Sri Nagaraja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Sri Nagaraja

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

Muneer Khan @ Langda Osomath Vs State by

Sri Manoj Kumar Agarwal Vs State of Karnataka

Srinivas Vs State by

Rafeeq Khan @ Mohammed Rafeeq @ Rafeeq Vs the State of Karnataka

Kamlesh Kumar Chaturvedhi Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Alexander D @ Alex Vs State of Karnataka