Allowed

Hanumesh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Feb 2021CRL.P/100252/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for accused No.1 charged with POCSO and IPC offences including rape. Court directed release subject to bond, Sureties, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to personal bond of 1 lac, two sureties, and conditions regarding non-interference with witnesses and no further delay in trial.

Hanumesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100252/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

HANUMESH S/O. MANAPPA GOUDR, AGE-24 YEARS, OCC-COOLIE, R/O.NEERALUTI, TQ- KANAKAGIRI, DIST-KOPPAL-583 236.

¶8

.. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI B.C.JNANAYYASWAMI ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (THROUGH KANAKAGIRI POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY ITS S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580 011.

¶12

SRI RAMESH S/O. IRAPPA TALAWAR, AGE-25 YEARS, OCC-AGRICULTURIST, R/O.MALAPUR, TQ-KANAKAGIRI, DIST-KOPPAL-583 236. .. RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY MS.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP FOR R-1) (RESPONDENT NO.2 –SERVED)

¶14

¶15

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. AND PRAYED TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN SPECIAL S.C.(POCSO)NO.36/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1 AT KOPPAL, IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.77/2020 REGISTERED IN KANAKAGIRI POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 363, 376, 354(A), 354(D), 506, 109 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 4, 6, 12, 17 AND 18 OF POCSO ACT, AND SECTION 3(1)(W), 3(2)(V-A) OF SC/ST PA ACT, 2015 PENDING TRIAL OF THE CASE, IN SO FAR AS THIS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner/accused No.1 filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting regular bail in Crime No.77/2020 registered by Kanakagiri Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 354(A), 354(D), 506 and 109 of IPC and Sections 4, 6, 12, 17 and 18 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’) and Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(V-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the SC/ST PA Act’).

¶19

The case of prosecution is that the complaint filed by the brother-in-law of victim namely-Sri Ramesh Irappa Talawar on 28.06.2020 alleging that, his wife’s younger sister was came and

¶20

¶21

stayed in his house from 20.06.2020. On 25.06.2020 when he, his wife and victim were in the house, at that time, accused Nos.1 and 2 came and met the victim and went back, on questioning the victim about the said persons, she has stated they have known persons to her and they are her villagers. Thereafter, complainant has intimated same thing to the brother of victim and asked him to take back victim to his house. On 27.06.2020 at 9.30 a.m. when the complainant was proceeding on his motorcycle by taking the victim girl as a pillion rider, on the way at about 10.30 a.m. near Charchanagudda Tanda the victim asked him to stop the vehicle in order to attend the 1^st nature call and went towards forest area. But inspite of 15-20 minutes she has not returned and thereafter he asked about the victim girl to one lady who was collecting wooden pieces in the forest area, she told, she has seen one girl and one boy gone on a motorcycle. Thereafter, he has lodged a missing complaint to the police. Thereafter, on the next day, the victim was came back to his house and a complaint came to be registered against the accused persons. Accordingly, accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested on 04.07.2020 by the police and remanded to judicial custody. The

¶22

¶23

petitioner/accused No.1 approached the Sessions Court for granting bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 has contended that petitioner/accused No.1 is innocent of the offences alleged. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The victim girl has categorically stated that she herself went along with the accused No.1. Accused No.1 himself brought back and left near her village and he has not done anything when she was with him. Even the same allegation made by her as it is about 5 months back. The statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. does not reveal the offence committed by the accused. There is no medical records to show, he has committed rape on the victim. He has submitted that RFSL report is still awaited. Hence, he prayed for granting the bail.

¶25

Per Contra , the learned HCGP objected the bail petition and contended that the petitioner/accused No.1 committed rape on the victim girl, who is minor girl below the age of 16 years and who is a member of Scheduled Tribes. The investigation of the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed. The RFSL report and the medical report reveal that the offence of rape committed on the

¶26

¶27

minor victim girl. The victim was subjected to intercourse. Such being the case, the petitioner/accused No.1 should not be released on bail. Hence, she prayed for rejecting the bail petition.

¶28

Upon considering the arguments and on perusal of the material placed on record, it shows, the complaint came to be filed by the brother-in-law of victim and as per his missing complaint, he along with victim were proceeding on his motorcycle to the house of his brother-in-law, on the way, near Charchanagudda Tanda victim herself stopped the motorcycle in order to attend the 1^st nature call, thereafter she escaped from his custody and as per her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. she went by took a lift from some other person in a motorcycle and joined the accused No.1, who was waiting in some other place. Thereafter, both of them met the accused No.2, who arranged for sending them to other places. Thereafter, accused also brought her back and told to go back, the victim herself refused to go back, however accused No.1 too went back, accused No.2 back to the forest area and left her and he has not done anything, thereafter she came back to the house.

¶29

¶30

On perusal of the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

¶31

though she has stated about 5 months back the accused came in contact with her and about 2 months later the accused No.1 said to have had intercourse with her. But thereafter, there is no contact between them. He was brought back to the house of the complainant, where the accused said to have visited the house of the complainant and contacted the victim in the presence of the complainant and his wife. On looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, though the victim herself eloped with the accused, however consent is immaterial. Though, she has stated that the accused done some black magic. Investigation is already completed; there is no medical record to show he was subjected to sexual assault on her. However, her hymen was ruptured and final opinion of the RFSL shows, she was subjected to the sexual intercourse. Petitioner was arrested on 04.07.2020; he is in custody almost 6 months. Charge sheet is filed long back, the presence of the accused No.1 is no more required for the purpose of investigation, except for trial. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner/accused No.1 made out a ground to grant bail to him. However, apprehension

¶32

¶33

of the prosecution may be safeguarded by imposing certain conditions, if accused released on bail, no prejudice would cause to the prosecution case. Accordingly, I pass the following :

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The Criminal petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.77/2020 of Kanakagiri Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 354(A), 354(D), 506 and 109 of IPC and Sections

¶36

4, 6, 12, 17 and 18 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(V-

¶37

a) of the SC/ST PA Act, subject to the following conditions:

¶38

i. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶39

ii. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall not hamper/tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶40

iii. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall not indulge in similar offences.

¶41

iv. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall take the trial without causing any delay.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

ckk

Hanumesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumesh 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

Ganesh S/O Anant Acharya Vs the State of Karnataka

Kesarimal S/O. Lakmaji Jain Vs Zakirahameds/O. Davalsab Kanavi

Balchandra Madev Karikantra Vs Uday Vaman Nayak

Ravi Obalesh Arived Vs State of Karnataka

Balesh Basappa Jatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Korachara Pakkirappa Vs State of Karnataka