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

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BONVENCHOR DUMING FERNADIS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P/101155/2021



1

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JULY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.101155/2021

BETWEEN:

BONVENCHOR DUMING FERNADIS

AGE. 19 YEARS,

OCC. WELDING WORK,

R/O.H.NO. 455,

NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE,

SUBHAS NAGAR, DHANDELI,

TQ. HALIYAL, DIST. U.K.-581325.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VENKATESH M KHARVI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY DANDELI TOWN P.S

REPRESENTED BY

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD

2.

AMEESHA XAVIOR FRANCIS MASKARNIS

AGE. 17 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,

R/O. NIRMAL NAGAR, DANDELI

TQ. HALIYAL, DIST. U.K-581325.

(RESPONDENT NO.2 DELETED

AS PER ORDER DATED 28.06.2021)

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1)

2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF

CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE ACCUSED ON BAIL

DANDELI TOWN P.S. CRIME NO.27/2021 IN SPL. CASE

NO.53/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KARWAR FOR THE

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 448, 376 IPC R/W SEC.4, 6

AND 15 OF POCSO ACT AND 66(E) OF IT ACT-2008,

THIS

CRIMINAL

PETITION

COMING

ON

FOR

ORDERS

THIS

DAY,

THE

COURT

MADE

THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This petition is filed by sole accused

under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the

‘Cr.P.C.’, for brevity) seeking bail in Crime

No.27/2021 of Dandeli Town Police Station,

registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 448, 376 of The Indian Penal Code

(hereinafter

referred

to

as

the

‘IPC’,

for

brevity) and Sections 4, 6 and 15 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the

‘POCSO Act’, for brevity) and Section 66 of the

3

Information Technology, Act, 2000 (pending in

Spl.C.No.53/2021 on the file of the Principal

District & Sessions Judge, Karwar).

2.

It is the case of the prosecution that

the victim girl aged 16 years 10 months has

filed the complaint stating that she knows

accused when she was studying in 9th class and

both used to visit Church. The victim girl sent

birthday message to the brother of petitioner-

accused and at that time, he used to talk with

her. During December 2020, the victim girl

used

to

visit

Church

and

at

that

time,

petitioner accused took a selfie of the victim

girl and thereafter taking disadvantage of that

selfie, he used to threaten her and used to

visit the victim’s house in the absence of her

parents.

It

is

further

stated

that

on

31.01.2021, at mid night, petitioner accused

4

visited the house of the victim girl in the

absence of her parents during odd hours and

went inside the bedroom of the victim girl and

had sexual intercourse with her forcibly. It is

further

stated

that

accused

taking

disadvantage of the selfie photo threatened her

that

he

will

display

the

said

photo

with

pornographic photo before her parents and also

to public. The petitioner accused had sexual

intercourse with the victim girl on four days

and thereafter the father of the victim girl

came to know through his well wishers and

with the help of her father, she filed the

complaint on 05.03.2021, which came to be

registered

in

Crime

No.27/2021

for

the

aforesaid offences. The police have arrested

the petitioner on 06.03.2021 and remanded to

judicial custody. Thereafter, the Investigating

5

Officer has filed the charge sheet for the

aforesaid offences. The petitioner-accused filed

bail application and the same came to be

rejected by the Principal District and Sessions

Judge, Karwar, by order dated 01.02.2021.

Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court

seeking bail.

3.

Heard the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and the learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

4.

It is the contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is

innocent,

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 Back to top