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

Sri V Kumar vs The State Of Karanataka

High Court Of Karnataka|31 October, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6571 OF 2017 BETWEEN:-
SRI. V KUMAR SON OF VINAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMESH ROAD, 2ND CROSS, T.DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560058. ... PETITIONER (By Sri: FAYAZ SAB B G, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARANATAKA S.H.O BAGALAGUNTE POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri: K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.232/2017 (CIS CR. NO.520/2017) OF BAGALAGUNTE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 366(A) AND 376 OF IPC AND SEC.4 OF POCSO ACT, 2012. THE LIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY HAS REJECTED THE BAIL APPLICATION ON 27.7.2017 IN CR. NO.232/2017 (CIS CR. NO.520/2017).
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent. Learned HCGP has not filed any statement of objections opposing the petition.
2. The material allegations against the petitioner are that on 02.06.2017, the petitioner abducted the minor victim and took her to Tamil Nadu and committed forcible intercourse on her. The victim is said to have returned home on 6.6.2017 at the instance of an social organization. A complaint came to be lodged. The prosecutrix has squarely implicated the petitioner and has alleged the overt acts committed by him attracting the offences punishable under sections 336(A) and 376 Indian Penal Code.
3. Having regard to the nature of the offences, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be admitted to regular bail, as there is likelihood of the petitioner interfering or influencing the sole witness. Hence, the petition is rejected, reserving liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer after examination of the victim before the trial court.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-
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

Sri V Kumar vs The State Of Karanataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
31 October, 2017
Judges
  • John Michael Cunha