Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Shivu vs The State By Arasikere Police Station Arasikere

High Court Of Karnataka|05 December, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8829/2017 BETWEEN:
SHIVU S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT RAMAGHATTA VILLAGE ARASIKERE TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583131. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.G.RAJENDRA REDDY., ADV.) AND:
THE STATE BY ARASIKERE POLICE STATION ARASIKERE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT RPTD. BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT BENGALURU-560001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP.) THIS CRL.P. FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME No.155/2017 OF ARASIKERE POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 354-A AND 506 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offence punishable under Sections 354(A) and 506 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.155/2017.
2. The prosecution case as per the complaint averments is that the victim woman is the complainant in this case wherein she has stated that while she was waiting for the bus near Ganesha Temple, some villagers were also there. Then they boarded the bus, at that time, the petitioner came near the bus and told that he is going to village and requested the villagers who had sat down in the said bus to come along with him as he was proceeding on motorbike and nobody was ready to go with him. Then, he requested the complainant to come along with him and she got down from the said bus and went with the petitioner on his bike. On the way, in the land near by one Veternary Hospital, he caught hold of her hands, dragged her to the field, touched her parts of the body and pulled her saree. The complainant, with an intention to escape, told him that she is alone in her house and requested him not to do anything at that place. Saying so, she escaped. The petitioner threatened her if she discloses this fact before anybody, he will not spare her. On the basis of said complaint, FIR came to be registered for the said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
5. Looking to the materials placed on record, there is a delay of 17 days in lodging the complaint. No doubt, it is mentioned in the complaint that he posed life threat in case if she discloses the said fact before anybody. Even if it is assumed, it can be for a reasonable period of time. Apart from that, the petitioner denied those allegations contending that there is a false implication of the petitioner and he is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court. The alleged offenses under Sections 354(A) and 506 of IPC are also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner by imposing reasonable conditions.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioner-Accused on bail in event of his arrest for the alleged offence registered in respondent police station Crime No.155/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for.
iv. The petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Shivu vs The State By Arasikere Police Station Arasikere

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
05 December, 2017
Judges
  • Budihal R B Criminal