High CourtsSingle Bench

Renuka Prasad. R vs State Of Karnataka

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 5 May 2020 · Citation: (2020) 05 KAR CK 0017

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. N. Phaneendra, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 2212 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

27 paragraphs · 500 words

K. N. Phaneendra, J

1.

Office objections have to be complied with through e-mail or immediately after the lock down is lifted.

2.

Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent â€" State.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent â€" State and perused the records.

4.

The brief facts of the case are that:

On 7.2.2020, the complainant who was aged about 21 years lodged a complaint stating that the petitioner-accused No.1, who is the husband of the

complainant, on 30.1.2020 took her forcibly in a car and on 31.1.2020 the petitioner married her in Yediyur Jalagiramma temple and had sexual

intercourse with her four or five times on that night and again on 2.2.2020 i.e., two days later, the said marriage was also registered.

5.

It s also stated in the complaint that he has also taken 38 grams of gold, Rs.1 lakh cash and in fact on 3.2.2020 he threatened her with dire

consequences of killing her and left her near Kanakapura bus stop. On these allegations, a complaint has been lodged and the police have been

investigating the matter. In this connection, the petitioner was arrested on 17.2.2020 and since then he has been in judicial custody.

6.

On perusal of the materials available on record, I am of the opinion that the above said allegations create a serious doubt at this stage, as to whether

the marriage between the petitioner and the victim lady was valid or it was forcibly done or there was any consent for the physical contact with each

other. These are the factors which have to be thrashed-out during the course of full-dressed trial in order to prove the offence u/s.376 of IPC.

7.

In the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a ground for grant of bail particularly u/s.439 of Cr.PC.

Hence, the following:

ORDER

The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner-accused shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.39/2020 of Harohalli Police

Station, Ramanagara, on the file of the Prl.Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Kanakapura, Ramanagara District for the alleged offences, subject to the

following conditions:

(1) The Petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only with one surety for the likesum to the

satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

(2) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

(3) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the court for any genuine cause.

(4) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission of the court till the case registered against him is disposed of.

(5) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for investigation as and when required.

The jail authorities are directed to conduct medical examination on the accused before his release, in view of Pandemic COVID-19.