C Maridevaru @ Maregowda Vs the State of Karnataka by

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN CR.NO.178/2023 OF KANAKAPURA RURAL POLICE, KANAKAPURA, FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 506 R/W 149 OF IPC, SEC.12 AND 14 OF POCSO ACT,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:1064 CRL.P No. 13079 of 2024

¶19

PENDING IN SPECIAL CASE (POCSO) NO.51/2024, ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED 1st ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, RAMANAGARA.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner-accused No.5 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.178/2023 of Kanakapura Rural Police Station, pending in Special case (POCSO) No.51/2024, on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Ramanagara, registered for the offences punishable under Section 506 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 12 & 14 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act 2012 (for short 'the POCSO Act'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Roopa.

¶24

Heard Sri. A.N.Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Rashmi Patel., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:1064 CRL.P No. 13079 of 2024

¶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.5 is seeking grant of bail. Initially, this petitioner along with accused No.13 had filed Criminal Petition No.4101/2024 seeking grant of anticipatory bail. The said petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.06.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner was apprehended on 12.11.2024 and since then, he is in judicial custody. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is already filed.

¶33

The mother of the victim aged 13 years lodged the first information against accused Nos.1 to 13 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and under Sections 12 and 14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:1064 CRL.P No. 13079 of 2024

¶36

'POCSO Act'). Now, the matter is pending before the Trial Court since the final report is already filed. While, hearing Criminal Petition No.4101/2024, the informant / respondent No.2 being the mother of the victim was personally present before the Court and expresses her anguish stating that, till today, she is receiving threatening calls from accused Nos.5 and 13 and considering the same, the petition for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected. Moreover, the Investigation Officer was directed to provide necessary protection to the informant in view of the similar submission made by her before this Court.

¶37

Today, the informant / respondent No.2 is present before this Court and make similar submissions that there is threat to her and her daughter from the accused. However, learned HCGP submits that as per the instructions by the Investigating Officer, the informant never approached him with any such allegations nor sought for protection.

¶38

Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to detain the petitioner in custody as it is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is required for further

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:1064 CRL.P No. 13079 of 2024

¶41

investigation or that he is having criminal antecedents. However, it is made clear that, if incase, the victim or the informant receives any threat from any of the accused including the petitioner, the Investigating Officer is duty bound to provide security to safeguard the victim and her family members. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to following conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

¶42

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

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petition is allowed.

¶45

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.178/2023 of Kanakapura Rural Police, Kanakapura Police Station, 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:

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:1064 CRL.P No. 13079 of 2024

¶48

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

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.

¶52

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.

¶53

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶54

PHM: List No.: 3 Sl No.: 6: CT: BHK

C Maridevaru @ Maregowda v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C Maridevaru @ Maregowda v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Armin D Souza @ Arvind D Souza Vs State by

Sri Jayaramu Vs State by

Sri a M Sridhar Vs Smt Parvathi

Smt Priyadarshini Vs State of Karnataka

Krishna Kishore Kalluri Vs State of Karnataka

Maxworth Realty India Ltd. Vs K C Spoorthi