Karnataka High Court
Shri. Gopal S/O. Mala Harijan @ Kamble vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 December, 2012
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11586/2012
BETWEEN:
Shri Gopal
S/o. Mala Harijan @ Kamble
Age: 21 years
Occ: Coolie,
R/o. Guruwar Peth, Gokak
Taluk: Gokak,
District: Belgaum. ...Petitioner
(By Smt.G.B.Naik, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor
(Gokak Town Police Station) ...Respondent
(By Sri.V.M.Banakar, Addl. SPP )
This petition is filed under section 439 Cr.P.C., praying
to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.203/2012,
registered by Gokak Town Police Station & etc.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the court
made the following:
2
ORDER
The learned Additional SPP has filed statement of objections.
2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4 in Crime No.203/2012 registered for offences punishable under Sections 354, 292 (1) (2) (A) (B) (C), 363, 366, 376 (g) IPC, and also for an offence punishable under Section 67 of the I.T.Act and Section 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.
3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Addl. SPP for the State.
4. The medical examination report of the victim would reveal that the victim was aged about 13-14 years at the time of incident.
5. As per statement of the victim, petitioner and other accused gang raped her. The petitioner had videographed the incident through his mobile and circulated the same to 3 general public. On the face of allegations made against petitioner, the petitioner cannot be released on bail.
5. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that accused no.1 to 3 are released on bail and request of the investigation officer to re-arrest the accused was rejected by the trial court.
6. It is seen from the records, at the first instance, the investigation officer had not included the offences punishable under Section 376 (g) of IPC, Section 67 of the I.T. Act and Section 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.
7. It is also seen from the records that accused no.1 to 3 were released on bail when offences punishable under Section 376 (g) of IPC, Section 67 of the I.T. Act and Section 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 had not been included in the final report.
4
In the circumstances, rejection of request for re-arrest of other accused by the learned Magistrate has no consequence.
8. Considering the nature and magnitude of offences and also bearing in mind that offences were premeditated, the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail.
9. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Np/-