Allowed

Sri. Shekarappa S/O Shanmukhappa Harlapur v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2018CRL.P/101659/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail petition filed by the parents and other relatives of a minor victim. The court granted bail subject to conditions requiring regular attendance, preventing the escape from Karnataka, and barring witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioners enlarged on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety subject to conditions of not tampering with witnesses, attending police station on Saturdays, and not leaving Kar

Sri. Shekarappa S/O Shanmukhappa Harlapur Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101659/2018

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

1.SRI. SHEKHARAPPA S/O SHANMUKHAPPA HARLAPUR, AGE.58 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURIST, R/O: VANAGERA,TAL. KUSHTAGI DIST. KOPPAL.

¶9

2.SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE HANUMAMANTHAPPA GURIKAR, AGE: 55 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/O. K. BODUR,TAL. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶10

3.SMT. DODDAMMA W/O SHEKHARAPPA HARLAPUR, AGE:52 YEARS,OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O VANAGERA,TAL. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶11

... PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SANTOSH B MALAGOUDER, ADV.)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH PSI, KUSHTAGI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SPP OFFICE,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.

¶15

... RESPONDENT

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP.)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN KUSHTAGI PS.CRIME NO.216/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376, 109 OF IPC R/W SECS.6, 17 OF POCSO ACT AND U/SECS.10 & 11 OF CHILD MARRIAGE RESTRAINT ACT.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Cr.No.216/2018 of Kushtagi Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 109 of IPC R/w. Sec. 6, 17 of POCSO Act.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - Police.

¶23

The brief facts of the case are that on 11.08.2018 in-charge District Child Protection Officer Sri. Ravindra Navadagi had informed over telephonic message to one Ravikumar S/o Late Ningappa Pawar that about three years ago the marriage of the victim/minor girl was performed at vanagera village at the age of 15 years with accused No.4-Saibaba Gurikar, who is college student

¶24

: 3 :

¶25

studying in PUC-II. The accused No.4 used to take the victim girl to his place during the festival occasion and in every such visit and whenever accused No.4 finds opportunity, at that time he committed sexual assault on the victim girl, when the victim girl complaining of stomach pain, the matter came up to light that she is carrying five months pregnancy and she is admitted in the hospital, thus on this incident the higher officer of the complainant directed the complainant to visit the hospital and to file complaint against the accused persons. The petitioners Nos. 1,2,3 are respectively accused Nos.1,2,5 in other words petitioner No.1 is the father of the victim girl, petitioner No.2 mother-in-law of the victim girl, petitioner No.3 is the mother of the victim girl.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, it was the case of the marriage between accused No.4 and the victim girl. However, complainant, who is a social worker has interfered and created confusion and moreover the petitioner No.1 is the father of the victim, petitioner No.2 mother-in-law of the victim, petitioner No.3 is the mother of the victim girl.

¶27

: 4 :

¶28

Per contra, learned HCGP opposes the petition filed by the petitioners on the count that incident committed on the minor girl discloses that her parents and other relatives together have performed child marriage and the accused No.4 knowing fully well that he is marrying with a minor/victim girl, accused No.4 committed forcible sexual intercourse on her which comes within the meaning of the POCSCO Act.

¶29

In the context and circumstances of the case, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail. However, apprehensions of the prosecution could be resolved by imposing conditions. Hence, the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Cr.No.216/2018 of Kushtagi Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 109 of IPC R/w. Sec. 6, 17 of POCSO Act on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety possessing immovable property for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court subject to the following:

¶32

: 5 :

¶33

CONDITIONS

¶34

The petitioners shall not terrorise and tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶35

The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9.00 PM and 10.00 PM.

¶36

The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of Karnataka State without the permission of the District Court.

¶37

SD/JUDGE

¶38

Sri. Shekarappa S/O Shanmukhappa Harlapur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Shekarappa S/O Shanmukhappa Harlapur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subbanagouda S/O Ramanagoud Badnur Vs Renuka W/O Late Babu @ Baabugouda Badnur

Sumangala Kom Mallanagouda Patil Vs Mallanagouda Rudragouda Patil

Smt. Usha W/O Anilkumar Naik Vs Shri Anilkumar S/O Narayan Naik

Mohammad Sameer S/O. Hussainbasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath @ Kadamanja S/O Shyamanna Nayak @Bhavani Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Vijayendra S/O Prahladacharya Panchamukhi Vs Smt. Renuka W/O Vijayendar Panchamukhi