Cr1.P.E'~Io.'?3-46.(}8 in THE men coum' or KARNATAKA, K CIRCUIT ammo}! AT DHARW.AD_ I A' DATEB THIS THE 4*»: DAY or KGVEh9H} ER, T' THE HoN'BLE MR..J13s'r1ci?:.~ '' CRIMINAL PETIT10:ftNO.734€;['"2fi90§ Between: 1. The State of Kaznataka by PSI Edigara i'éa.t'asappai,$ S/0 Seshagxpa, _ V Aged about, "'26 years; Fish V'_;3i(;do:i;' _ . ' :}?.Abdul§é;= .. . 2:: Agefid 'aha-u£V'i?,_4 yeaxf'S"_,= V . Punctmxfi Shep, "&&wm, ' ~ Sf O Béifl,di Basha, _Ag(_:€i ..s;ih(_:}1;-1; 35 years, V. R'/d'~Baa§1véna Pet, .Sir§1gup}3a Taiuk, §ist.S83'3120. A §ri.Gode Kagaraja, Adv) Szirigeri RS. c'\..S~--~>"\----~-------'-\_,.... A3 azrfresidents of Siriigcziri Village, PET'I'I'IONERS RESPONDENT
CrLP.No.’§’346,08
[By Sri.A.nand K.Nava]@znath, ECG?)
This geiition is flied unéer Sgetion L.
advocate for the petitioner prayinggthat tix§.s”«Ho:1’b_Ie’ .C:QuI’!; may
be plaased to miease the pctitioxxérs’ 0:1,
No.48/2008 of Sirigczi Poiict: and pcfiziing 011″” the ‘f1I€=-‘ (if £11.:
Civi} Judge (J1::Dn.) 6aJm§’C,”Sim_;1.guppaA. V j 7 –. ‘
This petition coming on 4E:’rV’erders,.”ih.i$’da§, the Court
made the following: V v
Pctitianatéréé.’ 3i respecfiveiy accused
N03,} to “Eirigeri Poiice: Siation of
for the offences punishabic
u/ss.3%5 have sought for ‘bail 11/8 439 9:’
the Qr._P.C. ‘V
‘A bail petition is seriously opposed by the
Prosecutor by f1li1:1g Written objections
_ tom.
‘ ” ; Heard the arguments of both the sides.
4. Eariicr t0 the filing of this bail petitien, these:
petitiom3:r3–accused had fzied their’ petition ujs 439 Cr.P.{Z.
(___~_____(\~.r’\,,z–\,
C;t1.P;Na.?3é16.C*8
beforé the learned Fri. Sessions Jzldgtf
Cr1.M.P.No.359/ 2008 and the same__c.arnc to’
S. 013 cagrseful reafiing ax.7::a:_A:iA§¢n’ts\
complaint filed by the very naxt1e’1jg _
couid be seen that 31:16″ has Véleat terms that
these petitio:1ers~accuseti intercourse
on her one aftcr.:§.t;<3ti1eifAb}fib uigtdér threat to her fife.
6. 1 ‘ counsel for the
gefifioxztfirstv .– tttat there has been delay of
about fzlays complaint and that the meclical
avidegxctt doééts _::1ot ..’c1isc16ét: that the victim was subjected to
scxuat intarééfiise and therefore the petitieners deserve
7;” is the settleé principle that conviction can be
Jtmsgd 0’21” tha mic: testimozuy of the gsrosccutrix despite the
t.«’x3;édicéal evidence not corroborating her testimony if her
% ..t:?:e:*.tin1<:a11y is found txustworthy and sufficient to prove the gufit
V' cf the accuseci beyond zeasonable doubt. Further, it is quite
natural in such cases that there would be some delay in filing
CIi_?.N{}.7346.08
the complaint because the vexy reputation sf
be: aéverseiy affected.
8. Sri.NagaIaj, the 1carne§fi.Vct)!,t1it;e}ttti§t% iir1:::
submittcici that it is not in ‘tpetitieneiéi
are permanently residing. at th¢_.;aria”‘mss¢s shé>wuAby}t11€m in the
(
bail petition?! as 31%;; suspected to misuse
$115? 133$??? if ‘@153? he has placed
reliance (.)I1:.tl’1§E 16.0′?’.2€}G7 passed in
the Cr}. t:téeVV’accused who was alleged
to hate’ ccxu.1tVnVtttt«3ti~’ 1113 3736 EPC was granted bail.
Sufiice $.t1§%* in the said case cannot be
eque1ta?u7L.w:ith tin: facts in the present case.
_ searious nature of the csffence alleged against
§34c:¥;~f.:é the material evidence ctuliecttzd by the
pmézrsgzitfiofi éuring investigation 8.21:} the clear statamaut ef the
” » bzfisgcttfiix that she was subjectsd to ftzsrcible sexual
iatemoume by thesa three petifloners 013$ after another, «@515:
‘ VV butweigh the fact that these petitioners are permanently
residing at the said addresses and thetrfi-fore they catmot 1136 said
r\.r”-‘x—-~
Cr1.P.’.\§Q_ ‘,.«’3«’i6’OS
to misuse the liberty if they are granted bail.
ft): the pfifitioners has net been ab.}e~tr)’ éshfixw 2:1-mu
accused persons could be falsely id}?
at the cost of her marital i’;<:;V'1
reputation. b . '
10. For the of thfi gonsidtzztd
spiniim that these dfi the grant of bail.
I-Emacs, tbs as being devoid of
merits.
Sd/-=
Judge