Karnataka High Court
Sri Gurumurthy vs The State Of Karnataka By on 10 February, 2020
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.795 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
Sri. Gurumurthy,
S/o. Elumalai,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at 31, Pattabiramanagara,
Magolam Cross, Avudi Post,
Near Pattabiram Police Station
and Railway Police Station,
Thiruvalluvar Post,
Chennai. ...Petitioner
(By Sri. Mahesh S., Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
By Bommanahalli Police Station,
Bengaluru District,
Represented by S.P.P.,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru - 560 001. ...Respondent
(By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in S.C.
No.110/2020 in Crime No.184/2019 of Bommanahalli P.S.,
for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 384 and
450 of IPC and under Section 66(E) of the IT Act.
-2-
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent-State. Learned HCGP has not filed any statement of objection, but, has orally opposed the petition.
2. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is laid against the petitioner under Sections 376, 384 and 450 of IPC and under Section 66(E) of the IT Act. Victim is a married woman. According to the victim, on the date of the incident she was sleeping in her house and had bolted the door from inside. Somebody opened the latch through the window and entered the house and within no time unclothed her and committed sexual assault on the victim. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused captured the scene in his mobile phone and also took photo in the mobile phone of the victim and the victim herself forwarded the aforesaid captured scene to her -3- friend and thereafter deleted the same. It is further alleged that after committing sexual acts, petitioner robbed her mangalya chain, ear rings, finger rings and cash of Rs.470/- from her purse.
3. Circumstances of the case indicate that the victim herself apprehended the petitioner/accused in a hotel based on the voice and physical features of the petitioner. There is no material on record to show that the prosecution has analyzed the voice of the petitioner by subjecting the same to any forensic examination. Even though it is alleged that during occurrence, gold articles of the victim were robbed, no such recovery has been effected. That apart, according to the victim, she herself forwarded the captured scene contained in her phone to her friend Sangeetha and thereafter, deleted the same before handing over mobile to the police. The FSL report is awaited. There is so many loose ends in the case of the prosecution which requires to be substantiated only during trial. Incriminating evidence having already been collected -4- and having regard to the nature of the evidence gathered by the Investigating Agency, there cannot be any apprehension of the petitioner tampering with the said evidence.
In that view of the matter, petitioner deserves to be admitted to bail. Hence, the following order;
Criminal petition is allowed.
i) Petitioner/accused is ordered to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
ii) He shall appear before the court as and when required.
iii) He shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.
iv) He shall not get involved in similar offences.-5-
v) He shall not leave the territorial limits of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE SV