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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25322

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR. PRAVEEN ALIAS K PRAVEEN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 102823 / 2024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102823 OF 2024 (439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

MR. PRAVEEN @ K. PRAVEEN S/O. YAMANOORAPPA BHAJENTRI, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC. LABOUR, R/O. ITAGI VILLAGE-583231, TQ. KUKANOOR, DIST. KOPPAL.

… PETITIONER (BY SRI NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUKNOOR POLICE STATION, R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001.

2. SRI. MAHADEVAPPA Digitally signed by MANJANNA M E ANJANNA S/O. HANCHALAPPA KORI, E Date:

2 1 + 0 5 0 2 : 5 1 5 3 0 . 0

0 :5 1 8 .07 AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ITAGI VILLAGE-583231, TQ. KUKNOOR, DIST. KOPPAL.

… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; R2-NOTICE SERVED)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C.

(U/S. 483 OF BNSS,) SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.67/2024 PENDING BEFORE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1, AT KOPPAL REGISTERED WITH- KUKNOOR POLICE REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 344, 363, 376(2)(N) OF IPC AND SECTION 4 AND 6 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2012, IN SPL. S.C.POCSO NO.48/2024, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘Cr.PC’) for grant of regular bail in Crime no.67/2024 by Kuknoor Police Station for offences punishable under Section 344, 363, 376 (2) (n) of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act’).

2. Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for petitioner submitted case of prosecution was that on 13.05.2024 at about 10.30 p.m., accused went near house of victim and kidnapped her to Hosapete on Hero Splendor Plus motorcycle. He parked motorcycle in house of his relative in Gollarahalli and kidnapped her took her to a room in an under- construction building in Avalahalli, Bengaluru, where while victim was sleeping on 15.05.2024 he had sexual intercourse with her on promise of marrying her several times. And that she was traced there only on 17.06.2024. It was thus alleged that accused had kidnapped minor girl – victim on his motorcycle on promise of marrying her and has sexual intercourse with her and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 344, 363, 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act.

3. It was submitted petitioner has not committed any offence and was being falsely implicated. It was submitted, even as per prosecution, incident occurred on 13.05.2024. But, complaint was filed by father of victim only after ten days without proper explanation for delay. It was submitted age of victim was 16 years and 10 months. In her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, she merely stated that accused took her to Hosapete and then to Bengaluru. She also stated when he touched her body while sleeping and later when he had sexual intercourse with her, she did not protest or state that it was forcible.

4. It was submitted petitioner was arrested on

18.06.2024 and was in custody for nearly eight months. In meanwhile, investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed on 08.07.2024. In column 8 of medical report of victim referred to in charge sheet, age as per victim was 18 years, but as per person accompanying her it was 17 years. Further in column 12, it was stated victim had sexual intercourse with accused with consent almost daily. Further in column 26, rupture of hymen was noted as old without contusion at ruptured ends. And in column 29, medical officer opined possibility of remote sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out, would not establish any of offences alleged.

5. It was submitted 24 witnesses were cited in charge sheet and completion of trial which had not yet started, was likely to be prolo

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top