Sri. Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.1554/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS SPL. JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH 54) IN CR.NO.20/2019 BAGALAGUNTE P.S., FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376, 307, 397 OF IPC.

¶13

2 -

¶14

NC: 2025:KHC:1810 CRL.P No. 9692 of 2024

¶15

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

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

The petitioner / accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.20/2019 of Bagalgunte Police Station, pending in S.C.No.1554/2019 on the file of the learned LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Special Judge, Bengaluru registered for the offences punishable under Section 376, 307 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Smt. Ambuja S.L.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1810 CRL.P No. 9692 of 2024

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

R E A S O N S

¶25

The petitioner being the sole accused is before this

¶26

Court seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 16.01.2019 and since then he is in judicial custody. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has suffered long incarceration and therefore, he is entitled for bail. It is also his contention that as per medical records, no offence under Section 376 of IPC is made out and this is also one of the grounds for grant of bail.

¶27

The materials on record discloses that the victim herself has lodged the first information making specific allegations for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 376, 307 and 397 of IPC.

¶28

4 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:1810 CRL.P No. 9692 of 2024

¶30

Even though, FIR came to be registered against an unknown person, during investigation, the petitioner was apprehended and later final report was filed. When the victim herself has made specific allegation against the petitioner for having committed the offences as alleged, the seriousness of the same is to be taken into consideration.

¶31

Admittedly as many as seven (7) witnesses are examined before the trial Court. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, none of the witnesses are crossexamined. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong i.e., non cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and alleging before this Court that petitioner is subjected to long incarceration. Looking to the nature and seriousness of the offences alleged and the conduct of accused and his counsel in not cross-examining the prosecution witnesses, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶32