Dismissed

Kanchikeri Manjunatha @ Manjanna @ Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2020CRL.P/101089/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a POCSO case involving sexual assault on a 9-year-old child, the High Court of Karnataka rejected the plea. The Court held that despite allegations of false evidence, the prima facie case and risk of tampering with minor witnesses precluded bail.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking enlargement on bail was dismissed. The petitioner is not to be enlarged on bail.

Kanchikeri Manjunatha @ Manjanna @… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶5

CRL.P. NO.101089 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KANCHIKERE MANJUNATHA @ MANJANNA @ MANJUNATHA K.B. S/O BASAVARAJAPA K AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURIST, R/O JANGAMA TUMBIGERE VILLAGE, TQ:HARAPANAHALLI, DIST:BALLARI.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, HARAPANAHALLI CIRCLE, ARASIKERI POLICE STATION, ARASIKERI, BALLARI, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶12

SMT. SHAILAMMA W/O HALESHAPPA JANGAMA TUMBIGERE VILLAGE, TQ:HARAPANAHALLI, DIST:BALLARI-583181.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP FOR R1) (R2-SERVED)

¶14

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAILA IN CRIME NO.23/2020 IN SPL.S.C. NO.466/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 376AB, 506, 109 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 4, 6 AND 17 OF

¶15

¶16

POCSO ACT, 2012 INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶20

and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

¶21

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.23/2020 of Arasikere Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323,376AB and 506 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012.

¶22

On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 376AB, 506 and 109 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012.

¶23

It is the case of prosecution that, on 12.3.2020 at about 5 p.m., victim child, aged about 9 years, and her friends were playing hide

¶24

¶25

and seek game in their school. When the victim child was hiding in the toilet of the school, accused No.1 along with accused No.2 came where she was hiding. Accused No.1 told accused No.2 to keep a watch outside the toilet and not to allow anybody to come inside the toilet. Thereafter, he forcibly held the victim child and committed sexual assault on her.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner

¶27

contends that the entire allegations are false. There is delay in lodging the complaint. The medical evidence is not conclusive. The witnesses are all minor and they are tutored witnesses. Their statements cannot be accepted. He submits that now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions, which may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the petition and enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶28

¶29

Learned HCGP has vehemently opposed

¶30

grant of bail to the petitioner and sought to reject the petition.

¶31

The incident has taken place on

¶32

12.03.2020 at about 5 p.m. On enquiry with the victim child by her mother, the victim child has narrated the incident to her. Having come to know about the incident, complaint was lodged on 13.3.2020 at about 6.30 p.m. Delay if any, therefore, is not a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶33

The victim is aged about 9 years. In her statement recorded under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C., she has clearly stated the heinous act committed by the petitioner. Statement of CWs10 to 15 corroborates the statement given by the victim child. They have stated that the accused left the place giving threat to them not to disclose about his act to anybody. The victim was

¶34

¶35

subjected to medical examination. As per final opinion, there is evidence suggestive of sexual violence. The material witnesses being minor children, there are possibilities of tampering the said witnesses, in the event of release of the petitioner. There is a prima facie case made out against the petitioner. Therefore, this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Petition is dismissed.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

JTR

Kanchikeri Manjunatha @ Manjanna @ Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchikeri Manjunatha @ Manjanna @ Manjunatha v. 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

Siddalingesh S/O Chansangappa Kudleppanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

T. Anjinappa S/O Durugappa Vs the State of Karnataka

S.M. Veeresh S/O S.M. Kotradevaru Vs the State of Karnataka

Chetan S/O Hanamanthappa Pujar Vs the State of Karnataka

Vijaykumar S/O Chandrashekarappa Matti Vs State of Karnataka

Krishna @ Katraju S/O Eranna Vs the State of Karnataka