Petitioner, accused No.1 in a case of rape and penetrative sexual assault of a 16-year-old under IPC, POCSO Act and IT Act, sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court found prima facie evidence credible, allegations serious, trial partly concluded, parity with accused No.2 inapplicable, and dismissed the petition.
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 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3290 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
ANIMESH BISWAS, S/O BISHNUCHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT: APMC MARKET, HUSKURU MAIN ROAD, MAKALI VILLAGE, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 162.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHASHIKANTH.R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI.K, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. SHILPA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
NC: 2024:KHC:19791 CRL.P No. 3290 of 2024
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.136/2023 OF YELAHANKA NEW TOWN P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 376(2)(n),376(3) OF IPC AND SEC.5(L),6,8 OF POCSO ACT AND SEC.67(B) OF IT ACT 2000 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTSC IV) BENGALURU CITY IN SPL.C.NO.1640/2023.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.136/2023 of Yelahanka New Town Police Station, on the file of the learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (F.T.S.CIV), Bengaluru City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376 (3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), sections 5(1), 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act') and Section 67(B) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short 'IT Act'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant viz., Kumari Keerthana L.N.
Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record.
“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
NC: 2024:KHC:19791 CRL.P No. 3290 of 2024
visited the apartment. He also induced the victim girl and by taking advantage of her innocence, kidnapped her and committed penetrative sexual assault repeatedly. He took the photos and the videos of the victim and started blackmailing the victim. The investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. As per the medical reports, the hymen of the victim was found ruptured and it was found that she was subjected to sexual assault.
NC: 2024:KHC:19791 CRL.P No. 3290 of 2024
NC: 2024:KHC:19791 CRL.P No. 3290 of 2024
for the petitioner is that accused No.2 has already been enlarged on bail and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. The allegations made against accused Nos.1 and 2 are entirely different. As I have already stated, the allegation against accused No.2 is that he being the security guard in the apartment where the victim was residing sexually harassed her by improperly touching the parts of the body. But the allegation against the present petitioner is that he being the plumber, visited the apartment, induced the victim girl, took her to a place and committed penetrative sexual assault repeatedly, taken photos and video and started blackmailing her. He used to call her repeatedly and used to collect obscene photos of the victim. The allegation made against the petitioner is of very serious nature and there are sufficient materials available to prima facie establish the same. The trial in the matter has already begun. It is stated that four or five witnesses are already examined. When the victim and the informant have supported the case of prosecution, there are no reasons to disbelieve the story of the prosecution. As I have already stated the victim was aged about 16 years at the time of incident, whereas the petitioner is
NC: 2024:KHC:19791 CRL.P No. 3290 of 2024
24 years of age. Looking to the nature and seriousness of the
offences, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
VM
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner-accused is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in the POCSO/rape case?
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Animesh Biswas
State of Karnataka by Yelahanka New Town Police Station
Victim/Guardian represented by father Lakshmipathi P.C.
M G Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
