STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. BABLU KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the State of Karnataka, Under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondents-Accused Nos. 1 & 2, by setting aside the order dated 29.02.2016 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 83/2016, on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in Crime No. 218/2015 of Vitla Police Station.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that: On 04.11.2015 at about 9.00 p.m, the complainant had gone to bed routinely after her daily work. At about 11 p.m, her husband frequently went to toilet due to stomach pain, petitioners have trespassed the room of the complainant wherein the accused No.2 caught hold her mouth, petitioner No.1 lifted her dress and committed forcible sexual intercourse on her and later, petitioner No.1 hold her neck, then the petitioner No.2 started to commit forcible sexual intercourse on her. Further, after forcible sexual intercourse, petitioner No.1 assaulted on her cheek and petitioner No.2 caught hold of her leg. When her husband arrived to the spot and tried to assault, both the petitioners escaped from the spot. As the incident had occurred during night at 12.00, she did not go to the hospital and on the next day, she had been to Vitla Government hospital for treatment and later she had been shifted to Government Lady Goshan hospital, Mangaluru for further treatment and thereafter she lodged complaint before the Vitla police station wherein a case came to be registered in Crime No.218/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections- 448, 341, 323, 376 (G), 506 read with Section-34 of the Indian Penal Code . After investigation, Vitla police have laid charge sheet against the accused person for the aforementioned offences.

(3.) The respondents-accused Nos. 1 and 2 applied for bail before the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada Mangaluru in Crl.Misc. No.83/2016 which was opposed by the prosecution by filing detailed statement of objections. Ultimately, by the impugned order dated 29.02.2016, the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the application and released the respondents-accused Nos. 1 & 2 on bail. Being aggrieved by the same, the State is before this Court, seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused Nos. 1 & 2.