Sri.Prashant S/O Santosh Aralikatti vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 December, 2015

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri.Prashant S/O Santosh Aralikatti vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 December, 2015

Bench: R.B Budihal.

                         :1:



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101906/2015
BETWEEN:

SRI PRASHANT S/O SANTOSH ARALIKATTI,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC.: PRESS REPORTER,
R/O: GHATAPRABHA, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST.: BELAGAVI.
                                     -     PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH PSI, GHATAPRABHA
POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY
ITS ADDL. S.P.P., S.P.P. OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
                                        -     RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, GOVT. PLEADER)

        THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN GHATAPRABHA P.S. CRIME NO.
249/2015 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 376(2)(I)(N),
370(2), 344 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 4, 6 OF THE POCSO ACT,
2012 & ETC.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                              :2:



                             ORDER

1. This is a bail petition filed by the petitioner-accused no.14 u/S 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on anticipatory bail of the alleged offences punishable u/S 376(2)(I)(N), 370(2), 344 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec. 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act registered in respondent Police Station crime no. 249/2015.

2. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused no.14 and also the learned Govt. Pleader for the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner-accused no.14 submitted that in the complaint lodged by the organisation, name of the petitioner herein is not figured. Hence, submitted that there is no prima facie materials placed by the prosecution about the involvement of the present petitioner in committing the alleged offences. Hence, submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions the petitioner can be admitted to anticipatory bail. :3:

4. Per contra learned Govt. Pleader submitted that there is prima facie case made out by the prosecution. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.

5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition and all other materials produced in the case. The prosecution has recorded statement of the victim Girl u/S 164 of Cr.P.C. before the learned JMFC at Gokak wherein she has stated her age as 14 years and she has also stated about the present petitioner having forcible sexual intercourse with her. Therefore, looking to her statement on oath before the Court, the prosecution placed prima facie materials about the involvement of the present petitioner in committing the alleged offences. Accordingly, petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE bvv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court