Kumari Mohana B vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 1989 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6955/2021

BETWEEN:

KUMARI MOHANA B,
D/O. B.BASAVARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.24/1,
MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
KOTE, CHANNAPATNA TOWN,
RAMANAGARA - 562 160.

SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
HER FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,
SRI. B. BASAVARAJA,
S/O. LATE BASAVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT NO.24/1, MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
KOTE, CHANNAPATNA TOWN,
RAMANAGARA 562 160.                      ... PETITIONER

            (BY SRI ADINARAYANAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY RAMANAGARA WOMEN POLICE STATION,
       RAMANAGARA - 652 159,
       RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
       REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                                2



     HIGH COURT BUILDING
     BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.   MR. PRATHAP C.,
     S/O CHANNAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
     R/AT NO.74, WARD NO.30,
     NAGANAKATTE, IJOOR,
     RAMANAGARA TOWN,
     RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159.              ... RESPONDENTS

            (BY SRI KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HCGP FOR R1;
            SRI UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439(2) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO
PETITION/APPEAL AGAINST THE BAIL ORDERS DATED
16.09.2020, PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.478/2020 ON THE FILE
OF THE HON'BLE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
RAMANAGARA, GRANTING THE BAIL TO THE ACCUSED
NO.1/RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 5L, 6 OF POCSO ACT A/W SECTIONS 342,
376(2)(n), 384 AND 506 OF IPC.

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

                           ORDER

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is absent.

This matter was heard in part on the previous date of

occasion and due to paucity of time, hearing of the matter was

deferred.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 would

submit that the trial has already been completed and the matter

is reserved for judgment on 18.02.2022.

Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent-State also not disputes the same.

In view of the fact that the trial has already been

completed and the matter is reserved for judgment, invoking

Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. does not arise.

Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST