Allowed

Sri Murthy v. the State by Periyapatna Police

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2022CRL.P/9813/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed criminal petition seeking regular bail for petitioner accused of offences under Sections 370 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. Court held no specific allegation of sexual act against petitioner and further custodial investigation was not required.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail in Crime No.300/2021 subject to personal bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties.

Sri Murthy Vs the State by Periyapatna Police — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9813/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI MURTHY S/O DASABOVI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/A MAKANAHALLI PALYA VILLAGE RAVANDOORU HOBLI PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571102 … PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI DINESHKUMAR RAO K, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE BY PERIYAPATNA POLICE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-01. … RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI KRISHNA KUMAR., HCGP)

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.300/2021 OF PERIYAPATNA POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 370, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

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

¶17

regular bail of petitioner/accused No.4 in Crime No.300/2021 of Periyapatna Police Station, Mysuru District, for the offences punishable under Sections 370, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶18

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

¶19

The factual matrix of the case is that this petitioner

¶20

instructed the victim to co-operate with the other accused persons that they get a good job to her and also instructed to co-operate with them for sexual act and this petitioner also block-mailed the victim i.e., he would show the pictures which have been taken when she was subjected to sexual act by other accused persons. Based on the complaint, the police at the first instance have registered a case for the offences punishable

¶21

¶22

under Sections 370, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Subsequently, invoked Section 376 of IPC.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the only allegation made against this petitioner is that he instructed her to co-operate with other accused persons to get a job. But, no allegation against this petitioner that this petitioner subjected her for any sexual act and the offence under Section 376 of IPC is not against this petitioner and against the other accused persons. This petitioner is in custody from 15.11.2021 and no need of custodial investigation of this petitioner in view of the allegations made against this petitioner.

¶24

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State would submit that though the offence under Section 370 of IPC was invoked at the first instance and she was subjected to sexual act taking the advantage of highhandedness and block-mailing the victim and also the specific allegation against this petitioner is that he caused the life threat if she discloses anything about him.

¶25

¶26

Having heard the respective counsel and also on

¶27

perusal of the complaint averments, no specific allegation is made against this petitioner that she was subjected to sexual act by this petitioner but only allegation against this petitioner is in respect of ingredients of the offence under Section 370 of IPC i.e., he instructed her to co-operate with other accused persons

¶28

and this petitioner is in custody from 15.11.2021 and having taken note of the ingredients of the offences under Sections 370 and 506 of IPC, further custodial investigation is not required and the ingredients of Section 376 of IPC does not attract as against this petitioner. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., subject to imposing certain

¶29

conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:-

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the

¶32

petitioner/accused No.4 shall be released on bail in Crime No.300/2021 of Periyapatna Police Station, Mysuru District, for

¶33

¶34

the offences punishable under Sections 370, 506 read with

¶35

Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶36

(i) The petitioner/accused No.4 shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶37

(ii) The petitioner/accused No.4 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶38

(iii) The petitioner/accused No.4 shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

¶39

(iv) The petitioner/accused No.4 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court, till the case registered against them is disposed of.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

cp*

Sri Murthy v. the State by Periyapatna Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Murthy v. the State by Periyapatna Police

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

Smt. Nagamani Vs the State of Karnataka

Salman Pasha @ Salman Vs State by

Mr Rateesh K Vs State by Bypanahalli Ps

Sri Sanjay Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Mir Mohammed Kazim Vs State by Vyalikaval P S

Sheik Barkath @ Bablu Vs the State of Karnataka