Allowed

Sri. Kiran. M. S. v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024CRL.P/8916/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru allowed the criminal petition filed by the petitioner accused No.11 seeking bail. Relying on parity with another accused granted bail earlier in the same case as charge sheet filing rendered him non-essential for investigation, the court granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing c#include with two sureties for Rs.2 Lakhs.

Sri. Kiran. M. S. Vs State of Karnataka by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36889 CRL.P No. 8916 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8916 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. KIRAN. M.S. SON OF SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDENT OF MAHADESHWARAPURA VILLAGE MELUKOTE HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka

¶11

(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PANDAVAPURA POLICE STATION MANDYA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN C.C.NO.620/2024 (CR.NO.102/2024) OF PANDAVAPURA P.S PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT PANDAVAPRUA, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 312, 313, 315, 316 R/W 34 OF IPC UNDER SEC.19 OF KARNATAKA PRIVATE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT AND UNDER SEC.4 OF THE MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY ACT.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:36889 CRL.P No. 8916 of 2024

¶19

THIS CRL.P., COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner-accused No.11 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 102/2024 of Pandavapura Police Station, pending in S.C.No.5061/2024 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 312, 313, 315, 316 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Section 19 of Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act, 2007 and under Section 4 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Dr. Bettaswami.

¶22

Heard Sri. Krishna Kumar. K.K, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36889 CRL.P No. 8916 of 2024

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

R E A S O N S

¶28

The petitioner being accused No.11 is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 10.05.2024 and since then, he is in judicial custody. Initially, FIR came to be registered against accused Nos. 1 to 5 on the basis of the first information lodged by Dr. Bettaswamy, District Family Welfare Officer. After investigation, the charge sheet is filed against accused Nos. 1 to 13 for various offences as referred to above.

¶29

The allegations made against the present petitioner is that he had contact with accused No.6, who was having a scanning machine, installed unauthorisely and illegally. He persuaded CW-2 - a pregnant women to under go scanning for

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:36889 CRL.P No. 8916 of 2024

¶32

the purpose of determination of sex of the fetus. Similar allegations appears to have been made against accused Nos. 8, 9 and 10.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner produced copy of the order dated 03.09.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.5259/2024 by learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya sitting at Srirangapatana, allowing the petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.PC by accused No.9, by observing that the charge sheet is already filed and the petitioner is not required for further investigation. When similar allegations are made against the present petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of parity with accused No.9. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is required for further interrogation or that he is having any criminal antecedents. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:36889 CRL.P No. 8916 of 2024

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petition is allowed.

¶39

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 102/2024 of Pandavapura Police Station, pending in S.C.No.5061/2024 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandy sitting at Srirangapata 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:

¶40

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

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.

¶44

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

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:36889 CRL.P No. 8916 of 2024

¶46

¶47

Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶48

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶49

SPV List No.: 3 Sl No.: 7

Sri. Kiran. M. S. v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Kiran. M. S. v. State of Karnataka by

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

Mahesh T S Vs State of Karnataka

S.B. Shivarudhrappa Vs B.S. Prabhakar

Smt Vanitha Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt. Ashwini D K Vs State of Karnataka

Devangi Sanghi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N Balaraju Vs the State of Karnataka