Gangadahar S/O Kenchappa Chalwadi vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 February, 2020

[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Gangadahar S/O Kenchappa Chalwadi vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 February, 2020

Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                   KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

                          BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

        CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200084/2020

Between:

Gangadahar S/o Kenchappa Chalwadi
Age: 36 years, Occ: Coolie
R/o Kudagi, Tq. Indi
Dist: Vijayapura-586101
                                               ... Petitioner

(By Sri Sanjay A. Patil, Advocate)

And:

The State of Karnataka
Through Police, Chadchan Police Station
Tq. Indi, Dist: Vijayapura
Represented by Addl. SPP,
High Court of Karnataka
Kalaburagi Bench-585107
                                             ... Respondent

(By Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, HCGP)


       This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to allow the petition thereby enlarge the
petitioner on bail in Crime No.116/2019 registered by
respondent     Police/Chadchan       Police Station,   Dist:
                                           Crl.P.No.200084/2020
                               2




Vijayapura for the offences punishable under sections
366(A), 354(D), 504, 506, 509, 376(2) (i), 344 read with
section 34 of IPC and sections 4, 6, 12 and 17 of POCSO
Act as per remand yadi dated 03.12.2019 (now pending on
the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Court, Vijayapura).

     This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
made the following:

                          ORDER

The petitioner has sought for regular bail under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Crime No.116/2019 of Chadchan Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under sections 366(A), 354(D), 504, 506, 509, 376(2) (i), 344 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'IPC') and sections 4, 6, 12 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'POCSO Act').

2. The summary of the allegation made against the present petitioner in the complaint is that the present petitioner, joined by the other accused, have Crl.P.No.200084/2020 3 gone to the house of the complainant and threatened her of dire consequences in case if she approaches the police station once again in connection with the alleged elopement of her daughter along with accused no.1- Siddaraya Paramatma Banasode. It is also alleged in the complaint that said Siddaraya Paramatma Banasode had kidnapped the minor daughter of the complainant and the remaining accused are said to have stated before the complainant that they had assisted Siddaraya Paramatma Banasode in the alleged kidnap.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main allegation is only as against accused no.1 - Siddaraya Paramatma Banasode, against him in the respondent - Police Station Crime No.44/2019 also has been registered. Even according to the complainant, present petitioner has got nothing to do with the alleged crime. The only allegation made Crl.P.No.200084/2020 4 against him in the present case is the alleged cautioning said to have been given to the complainant.

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader, in his argument submits that the investigation is in progress, as such, at this stage enlarging the accused/ petitioner may not be proper.

5. A perusal of the complaint at this stage and prima facie would go to show that the complainant has made certain allegations as against one Siddaraya Paramatma Banasode - accused No.1 stating that it was he, who had enticed her minor daughter and kidnapped her. The allegation made against the present petitioner appears to be of the present petitioner, joined by other accused, going to the house of the complainant on 23.11.2019 and Crl.P.No.200084/2020 5 cautioning the complainant of not to defame them in public.

In the said circumstance of the allegation made in the complaint, I am of the view that the continuation of the investigation would not be affected by enlargement of the petitioner on bail. As such, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner can be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER The Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner, namely Gangadhar S/o Kenchappa Chalwadi be enlarged on bail in Crime No.116/2019 of Chadachan Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 366(A), 354(D), 504, 506, 509, 376(2) (i), 344 read with section 34 of IPC and sections 4, 6, 12 and 17 of POCSO Act, subject to the following conditions that:

Crl.P.No.200084/2020

6

(i) The accused/petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `40,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the enlarging Court.


      (ii)    The accused/petitioner to give in
              writing about the change in his
              address,    if    any,     to     the

Investigating Officer as and when such change occurs and obtain acknowledgement in that regard.

(iii) The accused/petitioner shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing.

(iv) The accused/petitioner shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses and documents in any manner.

Sd/-

JUDGE swk

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court