Dismissed

Sri. Harishith S R v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Mar 2024CRL.P/510/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail, the High Court of Karnataka rejected the application. Considering specific allegations of sexual assault, extortion using nude photographs, and prior rejection of bail for a co-accused in similar circumstances, the court found it unfit to exercise discretion in favor of the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The bail petition filed by the petitioner was rejected.

Sri. Harishith S R Vs State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11474 CRL.P No. 510 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 510 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. HARISHITH S.R. S/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/A SUGGATTA MAIN ROAD SIR M V I T ROAD SUGGATTA HOSAHALLI BENGALURU-562157

¶9

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHASHIDHAR K.N., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶12

BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN P.S. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BENGALURU-560001

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. DIWAKARA K. MADDUR, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.193/2021 REGISTERED BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S.354A, 354B, 354C, 323, 342, 384, 504, 506 AND 509 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXXVII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:11474 CRL.P No. 510 of 2024

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.193/2021 registered by the Basavanagudi Woman Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 354(B), 354(C), 506, 509, 504, 384, 323 and 342 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶23

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

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend

¶25

that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and the only allegation against this petitioner is that he was along with accused No.1 and there is no specific allegation against this petitioner. Learned counsel also would submit that this Court earlier rejected the bail petition of accused No.1 and thereafter, he surrendered before the Trial Court and the Trial Court granted bail in favour of accused No.1 and learned counsel submits that considering the allegation against this petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11474 CRL.P No. 510 of 2024

¶27

Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent-State would submit that the allegations made against accused Nos.1 and 2 are similar and both of them subjected the victim for sexual assault as well as extortion and also taken the nude photographs of the victim and used the same for extortion of money. He would also submit that almost Rs.5 to 6 lakhs was taken from the victim by showing the nude photographs and even went to the house of the complainant-mother and showed the knife and caused life threat.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State and also considering the contents of the complaint, specific allegations are made against this petitioner as well as the accused No.1 and this Court also earlier rejected the bail petition of accused No.1 and similar allegations are also made against the accused No.1. Admittedly, learned counsel submits that this Court rejected the anticipatory bail of the accused No.1 in Crl.P.No.318/2022. When this Court already rejected the bail petition of accused No.1 in similar set of facts and circumstances and specific allegations are made, this Court in Para No.6 of the earlier petition in Crl.P.No.318/2022, taken

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11474 CRL.P No. 510 of 2024

¶30

note of the fact that victim was asked to come to mysore to introduce the parents of accused No.1 and instead of taking her to house, took her to a lodge and administered intoxicated substance in the juice and outraged her modesty and video graphed the same and subjected her for extortion and they were repeatedly using the same method and getting money from the victim and taking note of the allegation, this Court comes to the conclusion that it is not a fit case to exercise the power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on bail. When this Court has already rejected the bail petition of accused No.1 and the allegation is not only made against accused No.1 and also accused No.2, who is the petitioner herein and specific allegation is made against him that he himself had planned with accused No.1 and committed this offence and taken nude photographs of the victim. When such allegations are made and subjected her for extortion by showing nude photographs of the victim, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.

¶31

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶32

following:

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:11474 CRL.P No. 510 of 2024

¶34

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The bail petition is rejected.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78

Sri. Harishith S R v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Harishith S R v. State of Karnataka

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 Rudramma W/O Late Siddappa Vs Smt Ningamma W/O Late Maligappa

Smt K Ratnamma W/O Veerabhadrappa Vs Sri K Ekanthappa S/O Late Sannakallappa

Smt Jahnavi Vs Smt B Shobha

Rajashekar @ Raja Vs the State of Karnataka

Rahathulla Vs Shaik Mohammed

Sri. Harshithkumar N v Vs the Authorised Officer Cum Deputy Conservator of Forest