SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 8067

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M G UMA J
MANU H.M. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:H S SANTHOSH ,Respondent Advocate:

Table of Content
1. entitlement to bail under the cr.p.c. (Para 2)
2. criteria for granting bail based on right to liberty. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. conditions set for the bail. (Para 6)

ORAL ORDER

3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

4. Petitioner was apprehended on 14.07.2022 and since then, he is in judicial custody. Father of the victim lodged the first information against the accused alleging commission of the aforesaid offences. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. The contention of the prosecution is that the victim was aged 17 years at the time of incident. SSLC marks card pertaining to the victim is produced, according to which, the victim was born on 22.11.2005. The incident had occurred on 16.04.2022. It is also the allegation of prosecution that accused No.1 has forcibly married the victim and the marriage was registered.

The informant, the father of the victim is examined as PW.2 and mother of the victim as PW.3. The other witnesses are only the formal witnesses. Prosecution cited as many as 31

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top