Allowed

Lakkappa S/O Siddappa Thigadi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2020CRL.P/100135/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the bail petition of an accused charged with offences under POCSO and IPC. The court held that the victim had voluntarily accompanied the accused, found no groundwork for flight or witness tampering, and noted the accused had already spent significant jail time.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to executing a personal bond with surety, not tampering with witnesses, appearing at hearings, and not leaving jurisdiction.

Lakkappa S/O Siddappa Thigadi Vs the State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100135/2020

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

LAKKAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA THIGADI AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MASAGUPPI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶7

... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GHATAPRABHA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶11

... RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN GHATAPRABHA P.S. CRIME NO.141/2019 PENDING BEFORE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BELAGAVI (S.C.NO.252/2019) REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.376(2)(i)(n), 342, 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND SEC.4, 6 & 17 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 ON ANY CONDITIONS AND TERMS WHICH THIS COURT MAY DEEM FIT, SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition is filed by the petitioner/

¶18

accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No.141/2019 of Ghataprabha Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(n), 342, 506 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. and Sections 4, 6 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012.

¶19

The facts briefly stated in the petition are that on the complaint filed by Kumari Tippavva Siddappa Gundi, who is the victim, the police have registered the case. The allegations are that the victim was residing in the house of her grandparents at Shindhikurabet village. Her parents were residing in different house separately. The accused being nephew of the victim frequently used to visit the house of her grandparents and chatting with her. About 8 to 9

¶20

¶21

months prior to the date of filing the complaint, the accused forcibly had intercourse with the victim on the pretext of marrying her. Even the grandparents passively co-operated for the same. On account of the threat given by the accused, the victim had not disclosed about the incident. Thereafter the accused forcibly had intercourse on 2 to 3 occasions. When the victim became pregnant, the parents of the accused and other relatives forced her to get aborted. On registering the complaint, the police have conducted the investigation and charge sheet has been filed, which is numbered as S.C.No.252/2019. The bail petition filed by the accused before the Sessions Court is rejected. The petitioner was arrested on 15.06.2019. Since then, he is in judicial custody.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the

¶23

respondent-State and perused the records.

¶24

¶25

The learned HCGP has opposed the bail petition orally.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶27

inviting the attention of this Court vehemently argued that no definite case is made out against the petitioner-accused. There was no forcible sexual harassment. The victim has willingly cooperated with the accused for sexual acts. Thus, the ingredients of Section 376 are not at all attracted. There is no evidence to show that she on her own volition joined the company of the petitioner. As such, no definite case is made out that accused/petitioner has committed rape. Since the charge sheet has already been filed, the presence of the petitioner is not required for interrogation. He is ready and willing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court.

¶28

¶29

Per contra, the learned HCGP while acknowledging the factum of filing the charge sheet submitted that, keeping in view of the gravity of the offence allegedly committed by the accused/petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. The statement of the victim recorded before the Magistrate under section 164 of Cr.P.C. and other medical reports clearly indicate that the accused/petitioner has committed rape and as such there are no valid grounds for granting bail.

¶30

During the course of arguments it is submitted that the accused being a close relative of the victim has married her and the photographs have been produced by the counsel for the accused/petitioner.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on

¶32

¶33

record, it is evident that the even though the victim was a minor, she willingly joined the company of the accused/petitioner. There are no specific allegations that the accused/petitioner forcibly had sexual intercourse with the victim girl. Under these circumstances this Court is persuaded to agree with the contention of the counsel for the accused/petitioner that the victim/prosecutrix has voluntarily gone along with the petitioner without there being any pressure or threat.

¶34

It is pertinent to note that the accused has married the victim girl. No doubt the said marriage is against the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Having perused the material available on record, this Court finds no reason to keep the

¶35

accused/petitioner behind the bars, as he has

¶36

¶37

already suffered for more than 11 months in jail. It is well settled that till the time the guilt of the person is not proved in accordance with law, he is deemed to be innocent. Admittedly the charge sheet has been filed. No material is forthcoming to infer that in the event of the accused/petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may flee away from justice or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶38

It is well settled that the gravity of the

¶39

offence alleged cannot be a ground to grant bail. In catena of decisions the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the object of bail is to secure the appearance or presence of the accused persons at the trial by reasonable amount of bail. The purpose of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. No doubt the offence alleged is under the POCSO Act which is punishable with imprisonment for a period of ten years but it may extend to

¶40

¶41

imprisonment for life. However considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting bail to the accused/petitioner, subject to certain terms and conditions. Accordingly this Court proceed to pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Ghataprabha P.S. Crime No.141/2019 (S.C.No.252/2019), pending on the file of III Addl. District and Sessions Court, Belagavi, subject to following conditions.

¶44

The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand rupees only) with one surety for the like

¶45

¶46

sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶47

The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶48

The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court/Sessions Court on all the future hearing dates unless prevented by any genuine cause.

¶49

The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court/Sessions Court without prior permission, till the disposal of the case.

¶50

If the accused/petitioner violates any of the conditions, the bail order shall stand vacated automatically.

¶51

CLK/Mrk

Lakkappa S/O Siddappa Thigadi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakkappa S/O Siddappa Thigadi 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

State of Karnataka Vs Mr.Ravichandra Manjunath Haller

Shri.Praveenkumar S/O Mallikarjun Gokak Vs the State of Karnataka

Ismail Nisarkhan Pathan Vs the State of Karnataka

Ajay S/O Hanumant Kallavaddar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Govind S/O Shivaputrappa Sangolli Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Banappa Siddappa Vader, Vs the State of Karnataka