Allowed

Basavaraj Singh @ Balavanth Singh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2020CRL.P/100604/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for accused charged with offences under IPC and POCSO Act. Investigation completed; accused in judicial custody. Bail granted subject to stringent conditions to ensure witness protection and appearance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed bail in connection with Crime No.81 of 2019 on缴纳个人保证金并提供保证人。

Basavaraj Singh @ Balavanth Singh Vs the… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100604 OF 2020

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

BASAVARAJ SINGH @ BALAVANTH SINGH, S/O. RAMASINGH MANABHAVI, AGE : 27 YEARS, OCC : AUTO DRIVER, R/O.RAJAPOOTARA STREET, TAVARAGERA, TQ : KUSTAGI, DIST : KOPPAL-583 236.

¶7

….PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI B.C.JNANAYYASWAMI, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (THROUGH TAVARAGERA P.S.) REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD. (BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)

¶10

…RESPONDENT

¶11

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN SPL.S.C.(POCSO) NO.50 OF 2019

¶12

¶13

PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS / SPECIAL JUDGE, KOPPAL IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.81 OF 2019 REGISTERED IN TAVARAGERA POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 363, 376, 506 AND 109 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 4, 6, 12 AND 17 OF POCSO ACT, 2012 PENDING TRIAL OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting bail in Crime No.81 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Section 363, 376, 506 and 109 of IPC and Sections 4, 6, 12 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 of Tavaragera Police Station (Special S.C.No.50 of 2019 pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions/ Special Judge, Koppal).

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint filed by the father of the victim, the police have registered the case. The allegations are

¶18

¶19

that, the accused was known to the complainant and he had requested the accused to drop the school children whenever he was out of station. The elder daughter of the complainant had developed intimacy with the accused, as such the complainant had warned him. On 15.09.2019 at about 10.30 a.m. the complainant’s daughter left the house for attending the tuition, but she did not return home. Thereafter, the complainant’s daughter was found along with the accused at Bengaluru and they were apprehended by the police and brought to the Tavaragera village.

¶20

On registering the complaint police have conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet. Accused was arrested on 20.09.2019, since then he is in judicial custody. The bail petition filed by the accused No.1 before the Sessions Court is rejected.

¶21

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶23

and learned HCGP. Perused the records.

¶24

It is submitted that the statement recorded

¶25

under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix victim do not make out a case of kidnapping or forcible rape. Thus, the ingredients of Section 363 and 376 of IPC are not attracted, at the most the wrongful acts may be termed as consensual sex. The investigation is completed. Hence, the presence of the accused is not required for custodial interrogation. Due to the detention of the petitioner is put to great hardship.

¶26

Per Contra , the learned HCGP submitted that admittedly the prosecutrix is a minor girl. The accused had sexual intercourse by promising to marry her. In the event of granting bail he is likely to cause threat to the minor girl, complainant and other prosecution witnesses.

¶27

¶28

The allegations made in the complaint are

¶29

that, the accused had taken the minor girl to the other places and had sexual intercourse. There are no specific allegations that, accused No.1-petitioner has forcibly kidnapped the victim causing threat. The facts narrated by the victim indicate that, there was consensual sex. At this stage, it is needless to make elaborate discussion or to give specific finding about these records. Admittedly, the investigation is completed; the accused is in judicial custody for the past 10 months. The offence alleged under the POCSO Act is punishable with imprisonment for 10 years it may be extended to imprisonment for life and also be liable to fine, but that itself shall not be a ground for rejecting the bail. In catena of decisions the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the object of bail is to secure the accused person at the trial. No material is forthcoming to infer that, in the event of petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may flee away from justice. Under the said

¶30

¶31

circumstances there are no valid reasons to keep the petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period especially when the investigation is completed. The main objection of the prosecution is that, in the event of granting bail is likely to cause threat to the complainant, prosecutrix minor girl. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions.

¶32

Under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that, there are valid grounds for granting bail, subject to certain terms and conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petition filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶35

Consequently, the petitioner/accused No.1 shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.81 of 2019 of Tavaragera Police Station for the

¶36

¶37

offence punishable under Section 363, 376, 506 and 109 of IPC and Sections 4, 6, 12 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 (Special S.C.No.50 of 2019 pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions / Special Judge, Koppal) subject to following :

¶38

The petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶39

The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶40

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

¶41

The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court/sessions

¶42

¶43

Court without prior permission till the disposal of the case.

¶44

The petitioner shall mark his attendance in respondent- Police Station on first Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

CKK

Basavaraj Singh @ Balavanth Singh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basavaraj Singh @ Balavanth Singh 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

Shri.Shrishail Mallikarjun Vidyavardhak Sangha Vs the District Registrar of

Dharmappa S/O Basavantappa Badiger Vs the State of Karnataka

Gangadhar S/O Basavanneppa Shettikeri Vs the State of Karnataka

Sayed Mohammad S/O.Syed Mahibubsab Vs the State

Santosh S/O Peerappa Shirur Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Bilal S/O Ladu Sab Vs the State of Karnataka