Allowed

Sri Vinoda S/O Chandru v. State by Yesaluru P.S.

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2024CRL.P/2376/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.5 in a case involving alleged forced marriage of a minor with POCSO and SC/ST offences sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. With charge sheet filed and co-accused already on bail, the High Court enlarged him on bail with conditions and a Rs.2,00,000 bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in Crime No.11/2021 on Rs.2,00,000 bond with two sureties, subject to conditions; violation permits cancellation by Trial Court.

Sri Vinoda S/O Chandru Vs State by Yesaluru P.S. — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:19496 CRL.P No. 2376 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2376 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. VINODA S/O CHANDRU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT KAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, SAKALESHAPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573134

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SHIVARAMA D.A, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE BY YESALURU P.S., REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶12

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI. HALAPPA, S/O SRI. NIRVANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT BELURU VILLAGE, HETTURU HOBALI, SAKALESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDHA M.M, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED)

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.11/2021 OF YESALUR PS., HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.341, 114, 354-C, 366-A, 506 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC, SEC. 3, 5, 9 AND 10 OF CHILD MARRIAGE RESTRAINT ACT AND SEC. 12 OF POCSO ACT AND SEC. 3 (1) (W) (1) AND 3 (2) (va) OF SC/ST ACT PENDING IN SPL.C NO.154/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I HASSAN.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:19496 CRL.P No. 2376 of 2024

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner-accused No.5 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., in Crime No.11/2021 of Yesalur Police Station, pending in Spl.C.No.154/2021 on the file of the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Hassan, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 114, 354-C, 366-A, 506 r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), under Sections 3, 5, 9 and 10 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, Sec. 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO') and section 3(1) (W) (1) and 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill, 2015 (for short, 'SC/ST') Act on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Sri. Halappa.

¶21

Heard Sri. Shivarama D.A., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Waheeda, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:19496 CRL.P No. 2376 of 2024

¶24

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶25

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶26

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶27

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶28

R E A S O N S

¶29

The petitioner/accused No.5 is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 19.07.2023, since then, in custody. The police after investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the aforesaid offences. It is alleged that accused No.2 dragged the victim girl, accused No.1 forcibly married her and accused No.3 has taken the photos. It is alleged that as per the instigation by accused Nos.3, 4 and 5, the offence was committed. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. It is not in dispute that accused Nos. 1 to 4 are already enlarged on bail. It is not the contentions of

¶30

the prosecution that the petitioner is having any criminal antecedents. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:19496 CRL.P No. 2376 of 2024

¶32

that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶33

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petition is allowed.

¶36

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 11/2021 of Yesalur Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶37

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶38

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶39

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:19496 CRL.P No. 2376 of 2024

¶42

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶43

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

JS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 CT: BHK

Sri Vinoda S/O Chandru v. State by Yesaluru P.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vinoda S/O Chandru v. State by Yesaluru P.S.

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

Shri Ashok Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Dileep Kumara Vs State of Karnataka

C Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka

Deepak Alis Deepu Alis Kalla Deepu Vs the State of Karnataka

Union of India Vs Thaha Ummer K S

Sri Paramesh M C S/O Late Chikkanna Vs the State of Karnataka