Sri Udaya Kiran vs State Of Karnataka on 17 July, 2017

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5204/2017

BETWEEN:

SRI UDAYA KIRAN
S/O GOPALAKRISHANA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT
NO.204, ASHOK VIEW
BHAVANI NAGAR
KESHAWAPUR
HUBLI – 580 023. …PETITIONER

(BY SRI DIWAKARA K., ADV.)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HANUMANTHANAGAR P.S.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING -560 001. …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP.)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.100/2017 OF
HANUMANTHANAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 354A(1) OF IPC AND SEC.7 AND 11(ii) OF
POCSO ACT.

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

ORDER

The petitioner/accused is arrested by the

respondent/Police in their Crime No.100/2017 in respect

of the offences under Section 354A(1) of IPC and Sections

7 and 11(ii) of the POCSO Act, 2012.

2. The allegation is, the victim girl Kum.Niharika,

aged 8 years is the daughter of the petitioner and the

complainant. They are living separately from June 2016.

The petitioner has filed a petition for custody of his minor

child under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. By virtue

of interim order, he was getting the interim custody of

the child on Saturday and Sunday. During February

2017, since the child refused to go to school, she was

taken to a private hospital. Since the petitioner insisted

for the interim custody despite knowing that the child

has health issues, a complaint was lodged to the Police

by the mother. She was taken to NIMHANS for treatment

on 28.2.2017 and 3.3.2017 and was treated. The child
-3-

has stated during Counselling at NIMHANS that her

father/petitioner herein behaves in inappropriate manner

and hurts her feeling.

3. It is also the complaint allegation that on

9.3.2017, the petitioner molested the child.

4. Sri.Diwakara.K., learned Counsel appearing for

the petitioner submits that the entire allegation is

concocted and false. The complainant/wife had filed an

application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC

seeking injunction against the husband/petitioner from

visiting the child near the school. After the said

application came to be rejected, she lodged this

complaint on 23.3.2016 against him and other family

members at his residence. The child is tutored by his

wife to make false allegation against him. The petitioner

undertakes not to press for the interim custody of the

child until disposal of the case on its merits. If
-4-

anticipatory bail is granted, he will appear before the I.O.

and subject himself for further investigation.

5. Perused the case diary and also the statement of

the victim child recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

6. In the light of the strained relationship between

the parents, it cannot be said at this stage anything

about the merits or de-merits of the allegation. However,

having regard to the circumstances explained by the

petitioner, there is no impediment to allow the petition.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is

granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.100/2017 of

respondent/Police, subject to the following conditions:

(i) He shall appear before the respondent/
Investigating Officer forthwith. In that
event, I.O. is at liberty to interrogate him
and subject him for medical
examination.

(ii) In the event of his arrest, he shall be
released on bail on executing a self bond
for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one
surety for the likesum.

-5-

(iii) He shall not approach the victim child or
the complainant Smt.Deepa either
directly or telephonically.

(iv) He shall not terrorise them.

In view of disposal of the main petition,

I.A.No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration, hence,

disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE
KNM/-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *