Praveen Kumar B C vs State Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2020

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Praveen Kumar B C vs State Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2020

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1530

Bench: John Michael Cunha

                             1




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2020

                         BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

                 Crl.P. No. 2244 OF 2020

BETWEEN :
--------------

Praveen Kumar B.C
S/o Chamaraju,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at K. Belthur Village,
Sargur Hobli, H.D. Kote Taluk,
Mysuru District.                      ... PETITIONER

(By Sri. Mohan Kumara D., Adv.)


AND :
-------

State of Karnataka
By Alanahalli Police Station
Rep by its State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Complex,
Bangalore - 560 001.                  ... RESPONDENT

(By Sri. Thejesh P. HCGP)

                            ---
                              2




      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to
enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in
Cr.No. 82/2019 of Alanahalli Police Station, Mysuru
District for the office P/U/S 312, 376(2) 420, 506, 34 of
IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Posco Act. and etc.


      This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders through
video conference this day, the Court passed the
following;

                        ORDER

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.

2. The charges leveled against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 312, 376(2)(n), 420, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of POSCO Act.

3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in respect of the alleged incident which is stated to have taken place since the year 2016, the F.I.R. is lodged in the year 2019 after an inordinate delay of more than three years. The averments made in 3 the complaint do not make out the ingredients of any of the alleged offences. On the other hand, the averments made in the complaint would go to show that the complainant and the accused were carrying on consensual relationship; therefore, no offence is made out against the petitioner.

4. On going through the allegations made in the complaint and the FIR, it is seen that the complainant has alleged that on the promise of marrying her, the petitioner has been carrying on sexual relationship with her and as a result she conceived four times and was forced to abort the foetus and on 24.06.2019 when she refused to abort the foetus for the fifth time, the petitioner and other accused are alleged to have aborted the child against her wish. In the light of these allegations, the petitioner may not be entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as his interrogation is necessary and there is likelihood of the petitioner 4 tampering with the evidence if he is granted bail at this stage. Hence, the petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE.

LRS.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court