Dismissed

Sri. Praveen Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 May 2022CRL.P/3240/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a bail petition filed under Section 439 CrPC. The petitioner faced charges for kidnapping a two-year-old child for ransom under Sections 364A, 384, and 34 of the IPC. The court held that the material showing the petitioner's participation in demanding ransom and presence at the recovery made it unfit for bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail petition rejected; petitioner not enlarged on bail.

Sri. Praveen Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3240/2022

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O. RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/O. AVATHI VILLAGE DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 110.

¶9

PERMANENT ADDRESS KETHANAHALLI VILLAGE MANDIKALLU HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 104.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI HARISH N.R, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE-560 001

¶14

… RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.70/2022 OF YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 364A, 384 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.70/2022 of Yelahanka Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 384 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶22

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶23

The factual matrix of the case is that this petitioner

¶24

along with accused No.1 kidnapped the child who is aged about two years for ransom and this petitioner called the complainant by downloading the application ‘Tell Me’ and demanded an

¶25

¶26

amount of Rs.30 lakh to release the child and immediately, the complaint was lodged and within a span of two hours, this petitioner, accused No.1 along with child were secured. The police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the only allegation against this petitioner is that he was accompanied with accused No.1 and no other specific allegation is made against this petitioner and allegation against accused No.1 is that his mother was employed in the house of the complainant to look after the child and when the child brought to the house of accused No.1, he took the child and thereafter, called this petitioner and this petitioner was not aware of the same and the counsel also would submit that there is no any criminal antecedents against this petitioner and he may be enlarged on bail.

¶28

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that this petitioner was along with accused No.1 and also with child when the child was secured and apart from that this petitioner only called the

¶29

¶30

complainant with the help of ‘Tell Me’ application and demanded an amount of Rs.30 lakh hence, there is a prima facie case against this petitioner and he is not entitled for the bail.

¶31

Having heard the respective counsel appearing for

¶32

the parties and also on perusal of the material available on record it discloses that two years old child was kidnapped and also discloses that mother of accused No.1 was employed to take care of the child and when the child was in the custody of the mother of accused No.1, he took the child from her and shared the common intention with this petitioner and the material also discloses that when the child was secured, this petitioner along with accused No.1 was present at that time and apart from that

¶33

case of the prosecution is that ‘Tell Me’ application was downloaded to call the complainant and demanded ransom of Rs.30 lakh by this petitioner. When such being the material available on record, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of this petitioner and this petitioner has not played any role in kidnapping the child and demanding the ransom cannot be accepted at this juncture.

¶34

¶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. Praveen Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Praveen Kumar v. the 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

Amith Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Ashik Vs the State of Karnataka

B L Babu @ Machi Babu Vs State by

Sri Mallikarjunappa Vs State of Karnataka

Subbamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mohan Vs State of Karnataka