High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Chitra vs State By Rmc Yard Station on 4 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Chitra vs State By Rmc Yard Station on 4 November, 2008
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
IN THE HIGH coum or KARNATAKA AT BANGA{.'Ci"{E'v1-'~.:__Vj:. A _

DATED THIS THE 4*" DAY or NQ\{EMBEE1;"2K3.C3'3: (Li  _
BEFORE  %  %  
THE HoN'a1.E MR. 3UST'ICEVI3gS.§jfO!('V'*£.._"HINCi4v:iVG.Evéfi:  A
CRL. PETITION svo.4A3<$%cEm2de8  1  
BETWEEN    _  AA A

sm'. CHITRA V    
W/0 MURGESH     
AGEDABOUTAG YEARS     _ 
R/A NALLINAGARA. 4'  =     .
BEHIND RAILWAY STATION  A   7'
KIRAP, 9HARMAPtJR§..VDIE£7§7RICT,  _ '-- '-
TAMILNADU  A' '7'; "

 1 A   "  PETITIONER

" .,("5Y sH1.A:§IHA'AAYAHA, ADVOCATE
_%Fom«:,{s.;A Am ASSOCIATES)

Agssa

STATE 32! \kAm;§' "STAT'iQN
BANGALQREA.  A  ;

  % _  RESPONDENT

‘ ~ via? Sm: HONNAPPA. HCGP)

” B135 9%? 15 FILED U/5.439 crmc av THE ADVOCATE FOR

; ‘1._’T%i_Ev~. PEhT§.ONER PRA’a’ING THAT THIS HoN’BLE COURT MAY BE

‘PLE.9«SEDr=TG RELEASE THE PETITIONER on BAIL m c:a.no.7o/as or

‘_”R.M;C,Yg?«RD 35., IN C.C.ND.14645.»’08 WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR
‘THAE.,oE;FENcE PA:/s.3e5A, 372, 373, rvw 34 or-‘ IPC.

This petition coming on far orders this day, the Court made
Vibe feiiowing:

2

Q_B_Q.E.R

The respondent registered Crime No.70 of 20Q8j’:fé.r;’–thve

offence punishable under Sections 366A, 3272,

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code; ea.rti’er.!t wee V’

Crime No.32? of 2003 of Mediwala Po1:che.%st.atI§nhtta:1jd–£.herearterC_

it came te he transferred to the resbeejhdehtAPel_§ce..$tetiehV;”

2. The case of the pree7Leeutio.h”‘ih’VA hr§efvt’§e.that rhinor girl,
N, Bibi Ayeeha was said by the tr: the accused

No.2. In turn accus,ec§”«{~}:r”o.2 isolci girl te the third

accused (the:’:pet§t’iaher Rs”.35,000/-. The petitioner is
said to he runh’ing” a Dharmapuri, Tamilnadu. The
miher girlygae fortuntatehhreecued and brought to Bangalore and

w:ae.gt§\Ien,vh’te thhe-stjsttedy of her father.

3,.’ s_ri%AAd§hn’arfa’f;ana, the teamed counsel appearing for the

. eetfttener subrhite that the petitioner has been in judlciai custody

‘fje’r.A__the !ast”~A_flve rneeths. He submits that, as she is a woman,

‘sihethe released on half on such terms that this Caurt deems fit.

Sr: Hennappa, the learned High Court Government

Pteader appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner

95%.

had filed two Cfimina! Petitions In this Court after the filing of the

charge sheet. Both the Criminal Petitiens – 3237 of Zofiahgaed

3?76 of 2088 came to be dismissed by this Court M

2008 and 5″‘ September, 2008 respectiveiy.

5,. While the law permits the eceuéed’ «pe§feo§a,jA§~;«h_e:_’i’é=

judicial custody, be me successive eppticetiefisttfor >E)’fc}_uA!.]}”

expected of him be disciese the eafi’Eef”–fillne.s’!n’_ they eebeéqeent ‘V

eetitions. Otherwise it ameimts tet”i~ietht2§¥d!_ng efvthettmaterlel

énfermation from ‘ ~ »

6. Forcinatt the a minor girl, to have iiliclt
intercourse. _w!tht”et_t’xer_’.*pe:->ee’r;: indulging in flesh trade, are

héineus eiffeneesgvt. zThe§ ‘a’r’e’ Crimes against the society lteekf.

-.7′;A93*;1;er.;ttsef§tttarmatien ct:-uected by the proseeutéen, the

1’VI*::etIt§ener..__Vi5 at Natitnaeer, which is in Dhermapuri

of ‘!”e;}§ii!nedu, she has ma firm reots in Karnataka.

V t<_h_ee'e circumstances, the apprehensien of the prosecution

may flee away from justice cannet be said to be

1 L L' 4: u~e.ftiunded .

3%

inn

8, For an the aforeasaid reasons, I dismiss this4′:fietiii:§§é”.”%