In a criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail for offences under IPC Sections 363, 366A, 376 and the POCSO Act, the High Court Bench held that considering the nature and seriousness of the offence on the facts, the petitioner was not entitled to bail and dismissed the petition.
Bail prayer dismissed. Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2033 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
NARASIMHAMURTHY B G., S/O SRI. GANGADHARA B H., AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT NO. 267, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, BILESHIVALE VILLAGE, DR. SHIVARAMAKARANTHA NAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 043
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH PRASAD H N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2024:KHC:23123 CRL.P No. 2033 of 2024
BENGALURU EAST, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.C.C.NO.2955/2023 (CR.NO.590/2023) OF RAMAMURTHY NAGAR P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 363,366A,376 OF IPC AND SEC.3(a)4 OF THE POCSO ACT ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-III BENGALURU
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.590/2023 of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, pending in Spl.C.C.No.2955/2023 on the file of the learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSCIII, registered for the offences punishable under Section 363, 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant viz., Kaverappa.
counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”
My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:
R E A S O N S
grant of bail. He was apprehended on 01.11.2023 and since then, he is in judicial custody. Initially, the father of the victim lodged the first information making specific
allegations. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. The statement of the victim under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also recorded. It is stated that the victim is already examined as PW1. The deposition of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C of the statement of the victim disclose that she has fully supported the case of the prosecution.
NC: 2024:KHC:23123 CRL.P No. 2033 of 2024
6. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.? For the offences punishable under Section 363, 366A and 376 of IPC and Section 3(a) of the POCSO Act, and the answer
Whether the contention that prosecution has not proved the date of birth of the victim is admissible at this stage?
5 provisions across 3 enactments
NARASIMHAMURTHY B G.
STATE
SRI. KAVERAPPA
M G UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
