Karnataka High Court
Devappa S/O Saibanna Anakal vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 July, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200649/2016
BETWEEN:
Devappa S/o Sabanna Anakal
Age: 32 years,
Occupation: Agriculture,
Resident of Yadaga Village,
Taluk: Sedam, District: Kalaburagi.
... PETITIONER
(Shri Sidramreddy & Shri Venkanna Paraddy, Advocates)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
Through Malakhed Police Station
Represented by
The Special Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka
Kalaburagi Bench.
... RESPONDENT
(Shri P.S. Patil, Government Pleader)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to allow the
anticipatory bail petition and direct the Police to release the
petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.36/2016
of Malkahed Police Station, Taluk: Sedam, District:
Kalaburagi, which is registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 448, 354, 354(B), 509, 504, 506 of Indian Penal
code.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant had stated that the present petitioner had suddenly appeared in her home at about 6 a.m. and had swiftly disrobed her while she was sleeping and also disrobed himself and gestured that they should have sex. But however, the complainant resisted and started screaming for help at which her neighbourers, Mahadevi and Bheemu are said to have come and rescued the complainant. The petitioner had run away from the scene. It is in this background that a case has been registered for offences 3 punishable under sections 448, 354B, 509, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The court below while considering the bail petition of the present petitioner, has observed that the allegations in the complaint would clearly disclose a case of attempted rape and would be a case triable by the Court of Sessions and that the blunder committed by the Police in invoking the provisions for a lesser offence, could not be a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail, on the footing that it was a minor offence and has rejected bail.
4. This is indeed the correct view to be taken. Since the petitioner has tried to take advantage of a widow, who was older than him, there is no case made out for enlargement on bail. Hence, the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv