Karnataka High Court
Shivashankar @ Raju @ Gandhi vs The State on 4 July, 2018
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3686/2018
BETWEEN:
SHIVASHANKAR @ RAJU @ GANDHI
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NEAR VVR CHOUTARY
KUPPASWAMY LAYOUT
BANGARPET TOWN
BANGARPET TALUK-563 114 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MUZAFFAR AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE REPRESENTED
BY MARATHHALLI P.S.
REPTD. BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.332/2017 OF
MARATHAHALLI P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/Ss.365, 366A, 370, 371, 372, 373, 376 OF IPC AND
SECTIONS 3 & 16 OF POCSO ACT.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., by petitioner/accused No.1 in Cr.No.332/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 366A, 370, 371, 372, 373, 376 of IPC and Sections 3 & 16 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP. Learned HCGP has not filed any statement of objections, but has orally opposed the petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that, the accused Nos. 2 to 5, against whom, there are more serious charges are granted bail by the Trial Court. However, the bail petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that he has been arraigned as prime accused. Learned Counsel submits that, the allegation made against the petitioner, even if, accepted at its face value would attract only an offence under Section 366A of IPC, which 3 is punishable upto maximum imprisonment of 10 years and therefore seeks release of the petitioner on bail.
4. Learned HCGP opposes the submission and contends that the petitioner is a habitual offender. Another case has been registered against the petitioner in Crime No.134/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 372, 373, 376 read with Section 34 of IPC and further the investigating agency has produced prima facie material to prove each of the accusations made against the petitioners and hence he is not entitled for bail.
5. Considered the submissions. Perused the Charge- Sheet papers.
6. The FIR was registered under Section 363 of IPC, based on the complaint lodged by the mother of the victim alleging that the victim was missing since 7.6.2017. The said FIR was registered after a delay of more than two months on 8.8.2017. In the course of investigation, the victim girl was traced in Delhi and her statement has been recorded. In her 4 statement, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has alleged that on 6th June; she was waiting for one Pratap Reddy, her paramour in Kolar bus stand. At that time, an unknown person introducing himself as Raju, took her to Delhi on the promise of giving her some job in a footwear shop. But after taking her to Delhi, she was taken to one Radha @ Kajal and from there, she was taken to red-light area and later on she came to know that Raju had employed three other persons to keep watch over her activities. She has further stated that, two other ladies were also sold by Kajal.
7. The allegation made in the petition, even if accepted as true would attract the offence under Section 366A of IPC. The allegations of rape and other charges are directed against accused Nos.1 to 4, who are already enlarged on bail. In the said facts and circumstances, in my view, the petitioner also deserves to be enlarged on bail.
8. In so far as the other cases registered against the petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner 5 has made available the copy of the bail order passed in his favour in Criminal Petition No.3996/2015 dated 30.07.2015.
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following:
ORDER
a) Criminal petition is allowed.
b) Petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
c) Petitioner shall appear before the court as and when required.
d) Petitioner shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.
e) Petitioner shall not get involved in similar offences.
f) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE cp*