Allowed

Santosh S/O Basavaraj Harijan v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Feb 2020CRL.P/101797/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the petitioner accused of abduction, rape, and offences under POCSO and SC/ST Act. Relying on the victim's statement indicating a proposal to marry and lack of injuries, the court held that continued custody was not justified absent threat to evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail subject to execution of personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties and conditions to appear and not tamper with evidence.

Santosh S/O Basavaraj Harijan Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101797/2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SANTOSH S/O. BASAVARAJ HARIJAN AG: 24 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: HERUR, TQ: HANGAL, DISTRICT- HAVERI.

¶9

….PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HAVERI RURAL POLICE STATION, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.

¶13

….RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP.)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL(SC/ST) NO.35/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF I- ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT HAVERI, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 363, 366(A), 376(2)(N) R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 4, 6 12 AND 16 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 AND ALSO SECTION 3(2) (VA) OF THE SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is before this court seeking to be enlarged on bail in Special SC/ST No.35/2018 pending on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Haveri for the offences punishable under Section 363, 366A, 376(2)(n) r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4, 6, 12 and 16 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and also Section 3(2)(Va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that one Ramanna had filed a complaint on 04.10.2018 alleging that he is residing with his wife and two children i.e., Niranjan aged about 19 years and the victim aged

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

about 17 years doing coolie work. Since victim failed in three subject in SSLC, she was residing in the house. Near his house one Durgappa the petitioner, owns a tractor had employed the petitioner for driving the said tractor.

¶24

The petitioner and the victim used to talk to each other, the complainant had warned them not to do so. On 20.09.2018, at about 8.00 pm when all the family members of the complainant had been to Darga as it was Moharam festival at 8.30 pm when they came back to the house they found that victim was not in the house. Though they searched for her, they could not trace her. The complainant visited the house of Durgappa and found that the petitioner was also missing. He later on came to know that the petitioner along with his friends and the victim had gone on bike to Devagiri village.

¶25

: 4 :

¶26

Therefore, he filed a complaint alleging abduction of the victim by the petitioner.

¶27

On 01.10.2018 at about 19.50 hours, the respondent-Police based on the said complaint registered crime No.215/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 363 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The petitioner was arrested on 17.10.2018 and ever since then he has been in judicial custody. The investigation was completed and charge sheet has been filed for the offence punishable under Section 363, 326A, 375(2)(n) r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 4, 6, 12 and 16 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) and also Section 3 (2)(Va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶28

The petitioner approached the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Haveri in Spl.SC/ST

¶29

: 5 :

¶30

No.35/2018 for grant of bail, which came to be rejected on 08.05.2019 on the ground that grave and serious offences have been committed by the petitioner. The victim is a minor aged about 17 years and therefore, it is not fit case for the petitioner-accused to be enlarged on bail.

¶31

Sri. Aravind D. Kulkarni appearing for the petitioner would contend that the entire case as against the petitioner is misconceived. The victim in her 164 statement has not made any particular allegation against the petitioner having forcibly assaulted her. The statement discloses that the petitioner and the victim intended to marry, hence, the petitioner and the victim traveled from Devagiri to Harihar and from Harihar to Bangalore by train, then stayed in Kanakapura for about 15 days in the petitioner’s aunt’s house. The petitioner and the accused had stayed there nearly one month, in all this time

¶32

: 6 :

¶33

there is no complaint made against the petitioner. It is only thereafter at the instance of the parents of the petitioner a false complaint has been filed against the petitioner.

¶34

A perusal of the medical report, also indicate that there are no injury or evidence of forced sexual assault committed by the petitioner. Hence, he submits that the petitioner being a respectable person and he having no previous criminal records, being a law abiding and peace loving citizen has been in custody from 17.10.2018. The investigation having already been completed, the petitioner is required to be released on bail. The petitioner would comply with any conditions that would be imposed on him by this Court.

¶35

Sri. Aravind D. Kulkarni appearing for the petitioner would also submit that the petitioner was not aware if the victim was a minor or not as on that day and

¶36

: 7 :

¶37

he believed the victim to be a major and hence, they wanted to marry.

¶38

Learned HCGP submits that since the offences being one under the POCSO Act and the victim is said to be just for 17 years of aged, the petitioner ought not be enlarged on bail.

¶39

Heard Sri. Aravind D. Kulkarni appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP. Perused the records.

¶40

The voluntary statement made by the victim recorded on 20.10.2018 indicates that the petitioner and the victim had traveled from Devagiri to Harihar and from Harihar to Bangalore by train and thereafter stayed at petitioner’s aunt’s house for about 15 days.

¶41

There was a proposal made by the petitioner to marry and the victim had accepted the said proposal before they went to Harihar, thereafter to

¶42

: 8 :

¶43

Bangalore. During the entire travel from Harihar to Bangalore by train and stay there, no allegation has been made by the victim as against the petitioner. It is only after their return that the complaint was filed.

¶44

The medical report also does not indicate any forcible sexual assault and or external injuries. Therefore, I am of the considered view that at this stage the petitioner having been in judicial custody for nearly 15 months ought not be continued in judicial custody, exposing a young man to under trials and convicts. The investigation having been completed and there being been no threat of the petitioner interfering with the prosecution witness and or tampering with evidence, the petitioner is ordered to released on bail on the following conditions:

¶45

: 9 :

¶46

ORDER

¶47

The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.215/2018 of Haveri Rural Police Station, in respect of Spl SC/ST No.35/2018 pending on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Haveri for the offences punishable under Section 363, 366A, 376(2)(n) r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4, 6, 12 and 16 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and also Section 3(2)(Va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 subject to the following conditions:

¶48

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) with two local sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶49

: 10 :

¶50

(ii) The petitioner shall be regular in

¶51

appearing before the trial Court on every date of hearing as also when called upon to do so by the trial Court.

¶52

(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and or any matter relating to the case of the prosecution.

¶53

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without permission of the trial Court.

¶54

(v) The petitioner shall submit a list of immovable properties said to be owned by the petitioner to the trial Court.

¶55

In the event of violation of any of the above terms, the above bail shall stand automatically cancelled.

¶56

: 11 :

¶57

The observation made above is only for the purpose of consideration of the application for bail and the same shall not in any manner influence the trial. The trial Court shall dispose the case on merits without being influenced by this order.

¶58

Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

MNS/

Santosh S/O Basavaraj Harijan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh S/O Basavaraj Harijan 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

Shivappa S/O. Yallappa Iddalagi, Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Rohit @ Yuvaraj Mallappa Teli Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Shivanand S/O.Gurappa Varali Vs the State of Karnataka

Balagouda Alagouda Patil Vs State of Karnataka

Ambanna S/O.Arjunappa .K. Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjappa @ Manjunath S/O Nagaraj Mudabagil Vs the State of Karnataka