Sri Prem Kumar vs The Station House Officer on 18 April, 2017

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Prem Kumar vs The Station House Officer on 18 April, 2017

Bench: Rathnakala

                         1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE Mrs.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

        CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2074 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

SRI PREM KUMAR
S/O RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
NO.23/1, MALLI STREET,
NEW NO.37/1, FLR RASIPURAM TALUK,
NAMAKKAL,
TAMILNADU - 637 408.             ...PETITIONER

(By Sri NEHRU.P, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
SAMPIGEHALLI P.S
BENGALURU.
REPRESENTED BY APP,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU - 560 001.              ...RESPONDENT

(By Sri K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

     THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST
IN  CR.NO.08/2017   OF   SAMPIGEHALLI  POLICE
                               2



STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376,
420, 313 R/W 34 OF IPC.

    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON                  FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE                       THE
FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

Heard Sri Nehru.P., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for the Respondent/State.

2. The Respondent-Police registered a case against the petitioner in their Crime No.08/2017 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 313 read with 34 of IPC. The allegation is that the complainant is a divorcee. She came in contact with the petitioner during December 2015 through Face-Book. The petitioner assured her to marry and had sexual intercourse with her. From the said relationship, she conceived but the petitioner made her to undergo MTP. He received 3 Rs.15,83,000/- from her but has not returned the amount so far. Now he is avoiding her, etc.,

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grandfather of the petitioner lodged a complaint against the complainant of this case in respect of the offence under Sections 387 and 506(1) of IPC on 25.11.2016. However, the matter was resolved and she executed an undertaking not to interfere with the affairs of the petitioner herein and on that occasion, she has received Rs.4,00,000/- in the presence of the witnesses. Still, reverting from her own undertaking, she has lodged the present case.

4. Learned HCGP for the State while opposing the bail petition submits that the nature of the allegation requires his custodial interrogation. The amount cheated has to be recovered from his 4 possession and he is to be subjected for medical examination.

5. The nature of the allegation made against the petitioner requires deep probe. Granting anticipatory bail disregard of the nature of the allegation will intercept the investigation. In that view of the matter, the petitioner shall appear before the I.O. and convince him of his innocence, if he so claims. With this observation, this petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE dh

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court