Back
V SRISHANANDA
Ummarkunhi – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka By, Mangaluru Women Police Station, D. K District – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
V Srishananda, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. Present petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:
An FIR came to be filed against the accused/petitioner in Crime No.32/2022 on 07.03.2022 by the Mangalore Women Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 370, 506, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short), under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'ITP Act' for short) and under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012(hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act' for short).
4. Gist of the complaint averments reveals that victim girl was introduced by the petitioner to other accused persons wherein the victim girl was forced to indulge in prostitution. Victim girl is a minor. On different dates, she has been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse and different cases have been filed. In all the cases, the role assigned to the present petit
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner who has jumped bail and is not available for trial may not be entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner's conduct, such as jumping bail in a related case and being unavailable for trial, can be considered in determining entitlement t....
The voluntary nature of the victim's actions and the absence of allegations of forcible sexual intercourse by the accused influenced the court's decision to grant anticipatory bail.
The court's decision hinged on the prima facie case against the petitioner in a matter involving allegations of sexual offences against a minor, leading to the denial of anticipatory bail.
Anticipatory bail is not granted when specific allegations exist against the accused, necessitating custodial interrogation.
The court considered the voluntary nature of the victim's actions, the failure of the prosecution to provide essential evidence, and the victim and her family's express consent for granting anticipat....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the lack of evidence from the victim girl to support the charges influenced the court's decision to grant bail to the accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in granting anticipatory bail, emphasizing the importance of the petitioner's cooperation with the Investigating Agency and ....
The court emphasized the statutory bar on granting anticipatory bail in cases involving allegations under IPC section 376(3) and relied on victim statements and expert panel reports to establish a pr....
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
