Allowed

Naveenkumar S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2024CRL.P/9122/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.8 in a case involving illegal fetal sex-determination scanning sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after charge sheet against 13 accused. Granting parity with co-accused No.11 already released, and noting the petitioner was not needed for further investigation with no criminal antecedents, bail was allowed on bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in Crime No.102/2024 on bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including not committing similar offences or tampering with witnesses.

Naveenkumar S Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37657 CRL.P No. 9122 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9122 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NAVEENKUMAR S S/O CHANDRASHEKAR S AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT SUNKATHONNUR VILLAGE MELUKOTE HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 434.

¶8

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka

¶9

(BY SRI HEMANTH KUMAR K, ADVOCATE)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PANDVAPURA POLICE STATION MANDYA DISTRICT REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT. N ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN C.C.No.620/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE S OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC AT PANDAVAPURA (CR.No.102/2024 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE / PANDAVAPURA POLICE) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 312, 313, 315, 316 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC, 1860, AND SEC. 19 OF THE KARNATAKA PRIVATE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT, 2007

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:37657 CRL.P No. 9122 of 2024

¶18

AND SECTION 4 OF THE MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY ACT, 1971 AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner-accused No.8 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 C.C.No.620/2024 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) 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.

¶23

Heard Sri.Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.N.Anitha Girish, learned High Court

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37657 CRL.P No. 9122 of 2024

¶25

Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused

¶26

the materials on record.

¶27

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶28

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

R E A S O N S

¶32

The petitioner being accused No.8 is seeking

¶33

grant of bail. He was apprehended on 09.05.2024 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.

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37657 CRL.P No. 9122 of 2024

¶35

The allegations made against the present petitioner is that he had contact with accused No.6, who was having a scanning machine installed unauthorisedly and illegally. He persuaded CW-2 - a pregnant women to under go scanning for the purpose of determination of sex of the fetus. Similar allegations appears to have been made against accused Nos. 8, 9 and 10. The allegations made against accused No.11 and the present petitioner appears to be similar. This fact is not disputed by the learned High Court Government pleader.

¶36

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.11, 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

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37657 CRL.P No. 9122 of 2024

¶38

petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of parity with accused No.11. 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.

¶39

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶40

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The petition is allowed.

¶43

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.102/2024 of Pandavapura Police Station, pending in C.C.No.620/2024 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Pandavapura 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:

¶44

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37657 CRL.P No. 9122 of 2024

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

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.

¶49

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

¶50

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶51

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 9

¶52

Naveenkumar S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveenkumar S v. the 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 S. Rajendra Vs Sri M. Narasimhalu

Sri Seenappa T C Vs State by

Mahendra. C. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Waheed Ahamed Vs State by Chandra Layout Police Station

Sri.Guruganesh Chits Private Limited Vs Sri.S.L.Suresh

Fareed Ahmed @ Fareed Vs State of Karnataka