Venkatesh vs State By Beguru on 12 January, 2018

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Venkatesh vs State By Beguru on 12 January, 2018

Bench: R.B Budihal

                          1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
                       BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9435/2017
BETWEEN:

VENKATESH
S/O NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT NO.89, 12TH MAIN ROAD
1ST CROSS ROAD, ADARSHA LAYOUT
HONGASANDRA, BENGALURU 560114
                                        ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI B. ANAND FOR SRI. NAGARAJA N., ADV.,)

AND:

STATE BY BEGURU
POLICE STATION , BENGALURU-560114
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU 560001
                                       ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO 193/2017 OF BEGUR P.S.,
BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 354C, 506, 376,
328 OF IPC AND SEC.66D OF I.T ACT.
                                 2



     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

Learned counsel Sri.B.Anand filed memo of appearance on behalf of the petitioner.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences under Sections 354C, 506, 376, 328 of IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 registered in respondent police station Crime No.193/2017.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments that complainant's daughter is studying in Royal Concard School and she used to go to school in the school vehicle. The said vehicle was driven by one Venkatesh i.e., petitioner herein. He developed acquaintance with the complainant for about three 3 years and used to visit the complainant's house sometimes. One day when Venkatesh went to drop one Hemashree in her house, she took juice with him and gave it to complainant. After drinking the juice the complainant fell unconscious and at that time he sexually assaulted the complainant and also took video and photographs. He started black mailing by using said video clippings and photographs. He has collected money from time to time. He was putting her on pressure for more money and he was insisting her to send her daughter to him for his sexual satisfaction. When it became intolerable, the complainant consumed tablets. On the basis of the said complaint, a case came to be registered against the present petitioner for the alleged offences.

4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and also learned High Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced by the petitioner along with the petition.

6. No doubt there is a delay in filing the complaint, but it has been explained by the complainant in the complaint. Looking to the allegations made in the complaint that after giving juice to the complainant and when she consumed the same she becomes unconscious, taking undue advantage of the same, he had sexually intercourse with the complainant and he has taken video and photographs and then he started blackmailing the complainant.

7. Looking to the materials placed on record, at this stage, I am of the opinion that materials prima facie goes to show the involvement of the petitioner/accused in committing the said offences, and hence it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner and to release him on bail. Accordingly, petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE RR

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court