Sri Puttaswamy vs the State of Karnataka on 25 April 2015 2

Karnataka High CourtSri Puttaswamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 April, 2015Author: A.V.Chandrashekara 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015

BEFORE

HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

CRL.P NO.2057 OF 2015

BETWEEN :

SRI.PUTTASWAMYS/O.SUBBEGOWDAAGED ABOUT 32 YEARSR/AT, DEVARAMUDDANAHALLY VILLAGEHALLI MYSORE HOBLIHOLENARASIPURA TALUKHASSAN DISTRICT - 34 .. PETITIONER

(BY SRI.PRADEEP K.C. - ADV.)

AND :

THE STATE OF KARNATAKAREPRESENTED BYHOLENARASIPURA RURAL POLICE STATION,HASSAN DISTRICTREP. BY ITSSTATE PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKABANGALORE - 01 .. RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.B.J.ESHWARAPPA - HCGP )

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C. PRAYING TOENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.CASE NO.142/2014ON THE FILE OF ADDL. S.J. HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCEPUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 363, 343, 366, 368, 376, 506 OFIPC AND U/SS.4, 8 AND 12 OF POCSO ACT. 2

THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THECOURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Sri Puttaswamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 April, 2015

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/73955122/ 1

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.242/2014 on the file of the Holenarasipura policestation for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 363, 343, 366, 368, 376, 506 of IPC andu/ss.4, 8 and 12 of POCSO Act.

3. The allegation against this petitioner is that he abducted a girl aged about 17 years from hervillage Devaramuddanahalli in Holenarasipura Tq. on 6.2.2014 and took her to various places,confined her in a room in the vicinity of a brick kiln of Yelahanka in Bangalore and did not allow herto contact her parents. It is further alleged that he forcibly married her threatening that it would bevery difficult for her father to perform the marriage of other daughters. Further he forcibly hadsexual intercourse with her several times as the result of which, the victim girl became pregnant. Itis further alleged that he had held out threats with dire consequence not to disclose to anybody.

3. The learned Govt. Pleader vehemently opposed grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground thatprima facie case is made out against the petitioner which is evidenced by the material collected bythe police in the form of final report with regard to the allegations made in the charge sheet andfurther it is too premature to disbelieve the same and also the contents of the first information givenby the victim girl.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the victim girl has delivered a male baby2 months ago and the petitioner would live with the victim girl and look after her as well her childwithout fail. The learned counsel stated that he is making such submissions on receiving theinformation from his client as well as his family members and further, as the entire investigation iscompleted, requests that a lenient view may be taken against the petitioner and release him on bail.

5. There is some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. That apart, thepetitioner is a permanent resident of Devaramuddanahalli in Holenarasipura Tq. in Hassan Dist.having deep roots in the community. Hence, the apprehension of the learned Govt. Pleader may bemet by imposing stringent conditions.

6. Hence, the following :-

ORDER The petition is allowed and bail is granted to the petitioner, subject to the followingconditions:-

a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- withone surety, for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned court.

b) Petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper any of the prosecution witnesses.



c) Petitioner shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses or lure them in any manner.

d) Petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activities.

e) Petitioner shall attend the respondent police station once in a week i.e. on Sundays between 9.00a.m. and 5 p.m. till the case against him is disposed of, after his release from the prison without fail.

f) It is made clear that if the petitioner violates any one of the conditions imposed on him, theprosecution would be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail from the concerned Special Court atHassan.

Sd/-

JUDGE rs




Documents

Sri Puttaswamy vs the State of Karnataka on 25 April 2015 2