Back
M.NAGAPRASANNA
B. V. Hemanth Alias Hanumantha – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner is before this Court under Sec. 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking enlargement on bail in respect of Crime No.188 of 2021 registered for offences punishable under Ss. 363 and 376 of the IPC, Ss. 4, 5(L) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sec. 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, which is now pending in Special C.C.No.29 of 2022 and calling in question the order dtd. 23/2/2022, passed by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-III in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1252 of 2022 denying bail to him.
2. Heard Smt. M. Kusuma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri V.S.Vinayaka, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri B.N. Lokesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2
3. Brief facts are as follows:-
The willingness of families to perform marriage and precedent of a similar case influenced the court's decision to grant bail.
The seriousness of the allegations, the age of the victim, and the petitioner's criminal antecedents are crucial factors in determining bail eligibility.
The willingness of the victim in the marriage and the impact of the petitioner's custody on the victim and their children were crucial in the court's decision to grant bail.
Discrepancies in victim's statements, absence of supporting evidence, and delay in filing the complaint can be considered in granting bail.
Bail is a rule and rejection is an exception. The court must consider various factors, including the nature and seriousness of the offence, when deciding on bail in a non-bailable offence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
