Allowed

Kempegowda B K v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2024CRL.P/10115/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS Act, the High Court of Karnataka granted regular bail to the petitioner, a customer accused of sexual intercourse with a minor, placing him on bond and sureties despite completed investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail subject to bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties and compliance with conditions regarding appearance, witness tampering, and future conduct.

Kempegowda B K Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:46437 CRL.P No. 10115 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10115 OF 2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

KEMPEGOWDA B.K S/O KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NEXT TO MANDYA WINES KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA BENGALURU-560059

¶7

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

PERMANENT R/AT NO.73, BEERESHWARA ROAD SANKANAHALLI KALLIKAPALU NAGAMANGALA MANDYA DISTRICT-571432 (ADDRESS STATED AS IN REMAND APPLICATION DATED 09-08-2024)

¶9

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH M R, ADVOCATE)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KENGERI POLICE STATION BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:46437 CRL.P No. 10115 of 2024

¶15

SOWMYA N POLICE INSPECTOR WOMEN PROTECTION WING CCB, NT PETE BENGALURU-560002

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.RAHUL RAI K, HCGP FOR R.1; SRI.HARSHITH B, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC.439 (FILED U/S.483 BNNS) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.393/2024 OF KENGERI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR AN OFFENCE P/U/SEC.143(2), 143(3), 64 OF BNS 2023, SEC.3, 4, 5 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC PREVENTION ACT 1956 AND SEC.4, 6, 8 OF POCSO ACT 2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC V BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Accused No.5 in Crime No.393/2024 registered by Kengeri Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956, Sections 143(2), 143(3) and 64 of

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:46437 CRL.P No. 10115 of 2024

¶23

Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short 'BNS 2023') and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'POCSO Act') is before this Court under Section 483 of BNSS Act, 2023 seeking regular bail.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

FIR in Crime No.393/2024 was registered by

¶26

Kengeri Police Station, Bengaluru City, initially for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956, Sections 143(2), 143(3) of

¶27

BNS Act 2023, against Mangala and another on the basis of the first information dated 01.08.2024 received from

¶28

Sowmya N, Police Officer attached to Kengeri Police Station, Bengaluru. During the course of investigation of the case, the petitioner herein was arrested on 07.08.2024

¶29

and remanded to judicial custody. Investigation in the case is now completed and charge sheet has been filed against seven persons for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.5 in the charge sheet.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:46437 CRL.P No. 10115 of 2024

¶32

Bail application filed by the petitioner herein before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.No.7512/2024 was rejected on 03.09.2024. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the petitioner allegedly was a customer and as a customer, he had sexual intercourse with the victim girl. Undisputedly, he was not found in the premises in question as on the date of the raid. Subsequently, he was arrested on 07.08.2024. Accused No.3 as against whom similar allegations are made has been granted regular bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.9234/2024. Investigation in the case is already completed. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶34

Per contra , learned HCGP and learned counsel for respondent No.2 have opposed the bail petition. They submit that allegations against accused No.3 is that he

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:46437 CRL.P No. 10115 of 2024

¶36

had attempted to have sexual intercourse with the victim girl, whereas the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the victim girl and therefore, the alleged offences get attracted against the petitioner. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition.

¶37

The materials on record would go to show that on the basis of the credible information received, raid was conducted on the premises within the jurisdiction of Kengeri Police Station and accused Nos.1 to 3 were apprehended in the premises and victim girl was rescued. Accused No.3, who was said to be customer and was present in the premises at the time of crime, has been granted bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.9234/2024. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 07.08.2024 and remanded to judicial custody. The allegation against the petitioner is that he also had sexual intercourse with the victim girl about 15 days prior to the

¶38

date of raid. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:46437 CRL.P No. 10115 of 2024

¶41

Crl.P.No.9617/2021 disposed of on 03.02.2022 as

¶42

observed as follows;

¶43

"Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, in respect of offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 is concerned, the same does not attract against this petitioner. However, C.W.2 is a minor and this petition is a customer and also according to the prosecution, the victim is aged about 17 years, 9 months. When this petitioner went as a customer, the very ingredients of Section 376 of IPC attracts or not is a matter of trial. Since, this petitioner is in custody from 23.10.2021 and already investigation has been completed and charge-sheet is filed, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:-"

¶44

Investigation in this case is completed and charge

¶45

sheet has been filed. The petitioner has no other criminal antecedents and the allegations against him is that, as a

¶46

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:46437 CRL.P No. 10115 of 2024

¶47

customer, he had sexual intercourse with the victim girl.

¶48

The petitioner is in custody for more than three months. Considering aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail is required to be answered affirmatively.

¶49

Accordingly, the following;

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(i) The petition is allowed .

¶52

(ii) The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.393/2024 registered by Kengeri Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 & 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956, Sections 143(2), 143(3) & 64 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 4, 6 & 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, subject to the following conditions:

¶53

a) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:46437 CRL.P No. 10115 of 2024

¶56

b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶57

c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶58

d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future.

¶59

SD/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶60

NBM

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Kempegowda B K v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kempegowda B K 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Venkataraju Vs State by Dibburahalli Ps

Mr. Shankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Dinesh @ Tenatos Vs the State of Karnataka

Prasanna @ Prasannakumara Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ranjith Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sadath Vs State of Karnataka