Dismissed

Gangadharaiah v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2024CRL.P/5896/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal petition for bail filed by an accused under Section 376 of IPC. The court held that granting bail might terrorize the victim, a deaf and dumb lady, and other witnesses, denying bail at this stage.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed. Liberty is reserved to move the trial Court with similar petition seeking grant of bail after examination of the material witnesses.

Gangadharaiah Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:6593 CRL.P No. 5896 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5896 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GANGADHARAIAH S/O KEMPIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT SIRIGIPURA VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK, RAMAGARA DISTRICT. PIN CODE - 562 159

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT: CHAITHRA K.R. FOR SRI: M. KRISHNE GOWDA, ADVOCATES)

¶11

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: high court of karnataka

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE BY KUDUR P.S. REPTD BY HIGH COURT GOVT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT: WAHEDA M.M., HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.307/2022 OF KUDURU POLICE PENDING IN S.C.NO.111/2023 BEFORE THE HONBLE 3RD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.376 OF IPC.

¶17

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

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:6593 CRL.P No. 5896 of 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.PC in Crime No.307/2022 of Kudur Police Station, pending in S.C.No.111/2023 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Ramanagara, registered for the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC on the basis of the first information lodged by Smt. Kamalamma.

¶21

Heard Smt. Chaitra K.R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the sole accused. He is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 05.07.2022. Since then, he is in judicial custody. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. Under such circumstances, detention of the petitioner would amount to pre trial punishment. There are serious

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:6593 CRL.P No. 5896 of 2023

¶25

contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. He is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶26

Per contra, learned HCGP opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offence. CW-2 is the victim who is a deaf and dumb lady. She is already married having two kids. Her statement was recorded with the help of Special Educator in recording the statement. The medical records support the contention of the prosecution. The circumstantial witnesses have also stated in their statement regarding commission of the offence. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, she prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶27

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is

¶28

"Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.PC?"

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:6593 CRL.P No. 5896 of 2023

¶31

My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the following:

¶32

REASONS

¶33

The petitioner was apprehended on 05.07.2022 on the basis of the FIR lodged by the informant alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. The victim is cited as CW-2 in the charge sheet. She is said to be a deaf and dumb lady. She is married having two kids. The prosecution is placing reliance on the first information lodged by the informant. Statement of the victim is recorded with the help of the Special Educator. There are also the circumstantial witnesses. The medical report supports the contention of the prosecution. CWs.1 to 6 are said to be the material witnesses. Under such circumstances, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, definitely that will terrorize the victim and other witnesses. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail at this stage. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petition is dismissed .

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:6593 CRL.P No. 5896 of 2023

¶38

However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to move the trial Court with similar petition seeking grant of bail

¶39

after examination of the material witnesses.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

PN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Gangadharaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangadharaiah 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

Sri. a Srinivasa Murthy Vs Smt. M C Shashi Rekha

Sri.M. v Narayana Swamy Vs Sri Suresh

Sri. G. L. Balu Vs Sri. M. M. Subramani

Majeed Ahmad Vs State of Karnataka by

Suruthalappa Vs K D Thimmappa

Sri Kotraiah M S Vs Sri Rudresh P S