Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/10219/2017 of SRI. NAGARAJU Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY on 28 December 2017
COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.10219/2017 BETWEEN Sri Nagaraju, S/o Thamadappa, Aged about 23 years, R/at Hosamallenahalli Village, Kallambella Hobli, Sira Taluk – 572 137
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28[th]DAY OF DECEMBER 2701/7
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10219/201/
BETWEEN
Sri Nagaraju,|S/o Thamadappa, |Aged about 23 years,R/at Hosamallenanalli Village, Kallambella Hobli, Sira Taluk -— 5/2 13/Tumkuru District |
PETITIONER|
(By Sri U.B. Siddaramaian, Advocate)
AND
The State of Karnataka byWomen Police Station,Tumkuru District - 5/2 101.
Represented by State Public|Prosecutor, High Court Bullding, Bangalore — 560 OO1. |.RESPONDENT
(By Sri K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under section 439 Cr.PC.praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.63 /2017 of.Women police Station, Tumkuru District for the offence|punishable under Section 366A of the IPC and Sections 6, 10 of|Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act and Section 9 of tne Cnild Marriage Restraint Act.
Tnis Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, theCourt made the following:
ORDER
Page 1 of 2
The substance of the complaint is that on 29.6.201/7, thecomplaint was lodged by one K. Rajanna bin Kariyanna, stating|that on 19.6.2017 at about 2.00 P.M. he had got his daughter|Sahana boarded the bus from Tumkur bus stop to go to his.elder daughter's nouse at Bangalore. However, it was learnt that|sne nad not gone to his elder daugnters nouse and her)whereabouts were not known. In this connection, the case was.registered against the petitioner/accused. In the complaint it is |stated that the complainant’s daughter Sahana was in touch.with the accused. The later circumstances are that they came)to Know that sne was kidnapped by the petitioner.
2 |Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the daughter of the complainant and the petitioner have got married|and if the petitioner is lodged in jail their family life will be.disrupted.
3Learned HCGP opposed grant of relief to the|petitioner.
4Tne petitioner is said to be in custody from|3.8.2017. Investigation is said to nave been completed and|Charge sneet is filed. In the context and circumstances, it isjust and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.|
5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is”
ordered to be enlarged on bail on nis executing a personal bondin a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a surety for like sum to tne|satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the following.conditions:- #;Tne petitioner-accused shall not terorrize the|witnesses nor tamper the prosecution evidence in|any Manner. witnesses nor tamper the prosecution evidence in|any Manner.
##;Tne petitioner-accused snail mark his attendancebefore the Investigating Officer on every SecondSaturday between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 p.m. untilfurther orders. before the Investigating Officer on every SecondSaturday between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 p.m. untilfurther orders.
*alb/-.
Sd/-'JUDGE
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…