Dismissed

Derangula Madhu v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2024CRL.P/8939/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Successive bail petition dismissed in a POCSO case involving aggravated sexual assault. High Court noted hostile witness testimony but declined bail due to trial stage, directing trial court to conclude within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Trial Court directed to conclude trial within three months; Petitioner may move for bail if trial exceeds this period.

Derangula Madhu Vs State of Karnataka by — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38689 CRL.P No. 8939 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8939 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DERANGULA MADHU S/O DARANGULA CHINNA ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT KODUGURKI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110

¶9

ALSO RESIDING AT NO.5/47, PAGADALAPALLI, ALLAPALLI, OBULADEVACHIRUVU, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 561

¶10

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

(BY SRI. SHIVANANDA M.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SPP, VISHWANATHAPURA PS, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURTS, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶15

SMT. CHAITHRA W/O. LATE CHANNAKESHAVA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT KODUGURKI VILLAGE,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:38689 CRL.P No. 8939 of 2024

¶18

KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY. R., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. NISHAN UNNI. P ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.140/2022 AND SPL.C.NO.902/2022 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 376(3),506 OF IPC AND SEC.4(2),6 AND 8 OF POCSO ACT REGISTERED BY VISHWANATHAPURA P.S. NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-III BENGALURU RURAL BENGALURU.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This is a successive bail petition filed by the petitioner praying to enlarge him on bail in crime No.140/2022 of Vishwanathapura police station, now pending in Spl.C.No.902/2022 on the file of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC III, Bangalore Rural district, Bangalore.

¶26

Crl.P.No.1781/2024 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 21.03.2024. Subsequent to its

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38689 CRL.P No. 8939 of 2024

¶28

dismissal, petitioner filed one more application before the Sessions Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., which was dismissed on 06.08.2024.

¶29

The petitioner is accused of committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor girl on the pretext of marriage and then criminally intimidated her not to inform the matter to others.

¶30

The present petition is filed on the ground that the victim has turned hostile in the cross examination and even her parents have turned hostile. The learned counsel has further contended that the petitioner is languishing in jail since 09.10.2022.

¶31

Learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that in her chief examination, victim has supported the case of prosecution and the Trial is at the fag end. Therefore, submits that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice.

¶32

The evidence adduced before the Trial Court cannot be appreciated in this petition seeking bail. It is not in dispute that the Trial is at the conclusion stage. If any observation is

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:38689 CRL.P No. 8939 of 2024

¶35

made in the order, it may prejudice both the parties. Considering that the petitioner is in judicial custody form 09.10.2022, the Trial court is directed to expedite the trial. If the Trial is not concluded within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the Trial Court, petitioner is at liberty to move this Court for bail.

¶36

With the above observation, petition is dismissed.

¶37

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶38

LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Derangula Madhu v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Derangula Madhu 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

Sri Shivanna Vs State of Karnataka

Lakshmi Narayan Vs State through Siddapura P S

Chetankumar@ Chetu @Basaralu Chetu Vs State of Karnataka

Vidyadhara B S @ Vikas Vs State of Karnataka

Shivaprasad @ Prasi @ Parsi Vs State by Thilak Park Police Station

V N Karthik Vs State by Bagalu Police