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

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
P.G.M.PATIL
SANTOSH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P/200884/2018



1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.G.M.PATIL

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200884/2018

BETWEEN:

Santosh S/o Dattu @ Dattatraya,

Age: 22 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Panegaon-585308.

Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi.

... Petitioner

(By Sri Prashant S. Myakeri, Advocate)

AND:

The State of Karnataka

Through Farhatabad P.S,

Tq. & Dist: Kalaburagi-585308.

Rep by Addl. SPP

High Court of Karnataka,

Kalaburagi Bench.

... Respondent

(By Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C, praying to allow the bail petition and kindly enlarge

the accused petitioner on bail in Crime No.94 of 2017 of

Farhatabad Police Station, registered for the offences

P/U/Sec.363, 366(A), 376(2)(n), 109, 506 R/w Sec.34 of IPC

and U/Sec.4, 6, 7, 11, 12 and 17 of POCSO Act 2012,

pending on the file of II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

Kalaburagi, in the interest of justice.

2

This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court

made the following:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned High Court Government Pleader.

2.

This petition is filed under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in

Crime

No.94/2017

of

Farhatabad

Police

Station,

Kalaburagi for the offences under Section 363, 366(A),

376(2)(n), 109, 506 R/w 34 of IPC and Sections 4, 7, 11,

12 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012.

3.

It is the case of the prosecution that, one

Sri.Anaveerayya S/o Shantayya Math father of the

victim filed complaint on 16.04.2017 alleging that his

minor daughter aged about 16 years went to Gulbarga

to attend the tailoring classes, but she did not return

home. Therefore, he searched his daughter every

where. However, she was not found. On 16.04.2017 at

3

about 7-00 p.m. he found accused Santosh near the

bus stand after coming to know the facts, he went to the

house of the accused and enquired about the victim. It

is further stated that the accused kidnapped the minor

daughter of the complainant and mother and father of

the accused have also abetted him to commit the alleged

offences. On 16.03.2018, when the victim was traced

and brought to police station, the victim informed that,

accused No.1 kidnapped her and kept in the house of

his younger paternal aunt from 19.04.2017 till date and

he committed rape on her repeatedly.

4.

On the basis of the said complaint, case was

registered in Crime No.94/2017 during investigation

the petitioner/accused was arrested and produced

before the jurisdictional Court and he was remanded to

the judicial custody. The petitioner has stated that he

is innocent and he is in no way concerned with the

alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in

4

the case by his ill-wishers. The victim was more than

18 years old and they are husband and wife, they got

registered the marriage on 09.02.2018 before the Sub-

Registrar, Kalaburagi. The caste of the petitioner and

victim are different and they married against the will of

the victim’s family members, therefore, the father of the

victim developed grudge against the petitioner’s family

and they have been implicated to settle the score. The

petitioner is a respectable person. He is ready and

willing to abide by any terms and conditions and to offer

surety.

5.

It is also stated that the petitioner had filed

regular bail application under Section 439 of Cr.PC

before

the

Special

Court

in

Criminal

Misc.No.1070/2018 which came to be dismissed on

04.08.2018.

6.

The learned counsel for the petitioner

produced the copy of the certificate of registration of

5

marriage of the petitioner and the victim and submits

that they got married and therefore the alleged offences

are not attracted against the petitioner. The learned

counsel for the petitioner further submitted that

absolutely there is no material to attract the alleged

offences against the petitioner. Therefore prays for

enlarging the petitioner on bail. Per contra,

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