Vinodh Kumar B vs The State By on 18 February, 2016

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Vinodh Kumar B vs The State By on 18 February, 2016

Bench: A.V.Chandrashekara

                           -1-



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016

                         BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.931/2016

BETWEEN:

Vinodh Kumar B
S/o Basappa B
Aged about 22 years
R/at No.147, Suyejfarm
Road, Kanakagiri
Vidyanarayanapuram
Mysuru City.                                  ... Petitioner

(By Sri.N.D. Manjunath, Advocate)


AND:

The State by
Vidyanarayanapura police station
Mysuru City
Represented by
SPP High Court-571 123.
                                           ... Respondent

(By Sri.B.J.Eshwarappa, HCGP)


      This Crl.P., is filed u/S 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to
enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No. 130/2015 of
Vidyaranyapuram police station, Mysuru for the offence
punishable under Section 363, 376 of IPC and under Section
4 and 8 of POCSO Act.
                             -2-




     This Crl.P., coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following:


                          ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who is accused No.1 in Cr.No.130/2015 on the file of Respondent Police for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC. Investigation is still in progress. He is in judicial custody for the past two months. Hence, regular bail application is filed on his behalf.

2. The case on hand relates to the alleged rape of a minor girl committed by one Sunil. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has also attempted to rape the victim girl and somehow she avoided the same. Her statement is already recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 18.12.2015.

3. Learned Government Pleader has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner is also with another accused and attempted to -3- rape the victim girl and it is too premature to disbelieve the statement of victim girl. He requests the Court to dismiss the bail application essentially on the ground that investigation is still in progress.

4. Perused the records. Main allegation is made against one Sunil. It is true that allegation made against this petitioner is that he attempted to rape the victim girl. Petitioner is a student studying in BSc at Mysuru. He has already co-operated with the IO for investigation. Petitioner has undertaken to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Mysuru District having roots in the community. Thus, the apprehension of the learned Government pleader would be suitably met with by imposing proper conditions. Hence, I pass the following:

-4-

ORDER The petition is allowed and bail is granted to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:-

a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety, for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned court.

b) Petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper any of the prosecution witnesses.

c) Petitioner shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses or lure them in any manner and he shall not involve in any criminal activities.

d) Petitioner shall attend the concerned Court regularly on all dates of hearing and shall co-

operate with the Court to hold the trial.

e) Petitioner shall mark attendance at the Jurisdictional Police Station once in a week on every Sunday between 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. without fail till final report is filed and thereafter once in a month i.e., on every second Sunday between 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 -5- p.m. till disposal of the case, in case charge sheet were to be filed.

f) If the petitioner violates any one of the conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail from the concerned Sessions Court.

SD/-

JUDGE *sp

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court