Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 34498 (KAR)

KAMAL BARMAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/11484/2024 · 2025-01-29

M G Uma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4120 CRL.P No. 11484 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11484 OF 2024 BETWEEN: KAMAL BARMAN SON OF MANU BARMAN AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT KUKIKADA VILLAGE COOCH BIHAR, WEST BENGAL PIN CODE - 562 117 NOW RESIDING AT: MURTHANALLUR VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 125 …PETITIONER (BY SRI: SHRAVAN MADHAV K.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SURYA NAGAR POLICE STATION REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA SURYANAGAR PHASE-I SURYANAGAR, BOMMASANDRA IGGALUR - 562 106 2. ANJANA DEBANATH WIFE OF PARAMESH DEBANATH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT: PULABHARI MASAN PATH POST BEETAR KAMAR KOOCHA BIHAR COOCH BEHAR, WEST BENGAL - 562 117 NOW RESIDING AT: Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4120 CRL.P No. 11484 of 2024 DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU - 562 110 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT: RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1 R2 - SD - UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER BY GRANTING REGULAR BAIL IN SC.NO.20/2024 (CR.NO.506/2023 REGISTERED IN SURYA NAGAR POLICE STATION), FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 302, 395 AND 149 OF IPC, REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT (FTSC-III), BENGALURU. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being the sole accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.506 of 2023 of Suryanagar Police Station, pending in Spl.C.No.20 of 2024 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District (FTSC-III), Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A and 376 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4120 CRL.P No. 11484 of 2024 Act (for short 'the POCSO Act'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Anjana Debanath. 2. Heard Sri K P Shravan Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?” My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 4. The petitioner being the sole accused is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 13.11.2023 and since then he is in judicial custody. The mother of the victim has lodged the complaint alleging that the accused kidnapped the minor girl aged 16 years and committed sexual assault. As a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4120 CRL.P No. 11484 of 2024 result of which, he impregnated her and committed the offences as stated above. The investigation was undertaken and the final report was filed. 5. The materials on record discloses that the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned Magistrate, wherein, she has fully supported the case. It is also stated that the DNA sample collected from the victim as well as by the petitioner matched, which prima facie discloses commission of offences by the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that he is disputing the age of the victim and that the victim has voluntarily came along with him, cannot be accepted at this stage. The same may be taken as a defence before the Trial Court. Looking to the nature and seriousness of the offences, I am of the opinion that it is not safe to enlarge the petitioner on bail as the informant, victim and other material witnesses are to be examined before the Trial Court. Hence, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition is dismissed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4120 CRL.P No. 11484 of 2024 At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to renew the prayer for bail before the Trial Court after examination of the material witnesses. Liberty is reserved as prayed for. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE *bgn/- CT:VS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2