Allowed

Manju S/O Yallappa Doddamani v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Mar 2021CRL.P/100405/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the criminal petition filed by the accused seeking bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving kidnapping and offences under POCSO Act, granting bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner admitted to bail on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties for the same sum, subject to conditions not committing offences, tampering witnesses, or appearing when required.

Manju S/O Yallappa Doddamani Vs the State of… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26^th DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.100405/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MANJU S/O YALLAPPA DODDAMANI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: MASON WORK, R/O: NANDIKATTA VILLAGE, TQ: MUNDGOD-581411, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶8

…. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.VIJAY S. CHINIWAR, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD, BY ITS YELLAPUR POLICE STATION-581359, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR.

¶12

.... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI.RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF Cr.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPECIAL CASE NO.130/2020 (YELLAPUR PS CRIME NO.167/2020) REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363, 376 OF IPC AND

¶15

¶16

SECTIONS 4, 6 AND 10 OF POCSO ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1, U.K. KARWAR (SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES FILED UNDER POCSO) ACT.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner/accused is before this Court

¶20

seeking grant of regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.167/2020 of Yellapur Police Station, initially registered for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ for the sake of brevity), against the accused on the basis of first information lodged by the first informant-Smt.Laxmi Kambale.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that, the informant-Smt.Laxmi lodged the first information on 15.09.2020 stating that her daughter is aged 17 years and 8 months. On 13.09.2020, she had gone out of the house, but had not returned. Even after due search, her whereabouts could not be traced.

¶22

¶23

The informant stated that few months back, the victim girl had gone to her sister’s house and had stayed there about 15 days. The informant came to know that the victim girl and the accused herein, who is the husband of the sister of victim girl were having relationship. In this regard, both of them were advised by the elders. Therefore, it is suspected by the informant that on 13.09.2020, the accused might have induced the victim and might have kidnapped her. Hence, she requested the police to register the case and to initiate legal action. Accordingly, the police registered the case and took up investigation.

¶24

It is stated that during investigation, the statement of the victim girl under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Investigating Officer and her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded by the Learned Magistrate. Both these statements of the victim disclose that, she had developed affair with the accused and she herself called the accused and both of them have gone to Kolhapur and other places and have returned

¶25

¶26

thereafter. After subjecting the victim to medical examination, charge sheet is filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of IPC and under Sections 4, 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘POCSO Act’ for the sake of brevity).

¶27

Heard Sri.Vijay S. Chiniwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Ramesh B. Chigari, learned HCGP for respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offence as alleged and he has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. Even according to the statements of victim girl recorded both under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., the victim girl stated that she voluntarily induced the accused to take her to different places. The victim girl is aged about 17 years and 8 months and she was in a

¶29

¶30

position to know the consequences of her act. The victim never stated that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. The investigation is already completed. The petitioner was apprehended on 09.10.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody. Detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pretrial punishment. He is not required for custodial interrogation. He is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Therefore, he prays for allowing of the petition.

¶31

Per contra , learned High Court Government

¶32

Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offence. Even though, initially the FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC, subsequently, the victim was rescued and her statements was recorded both under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein, she has

¶33

¶34

categorically stated that the accused had taken her to various other places and they were having relationship. Medical records disclose that hymen of the victim girl was torn, which clearly demonstrates that the accused had committed the offences alleged against him. Even though, the investigation is completed, accused will be in a position to induce the victim girl and he may commit similar offence and threaten the prosecution witnesses including the victim girl. He is not entitled for grant of bail. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶35

In view of the rival contentions urged by

¶36

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arises for my consideration is:

¶37

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶38

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶39

¶40

REASONS

¶41

Serious allegations are made against the accused for having committed the offences. Statement of the victim girl both under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. prima facie discloses the commission of offence. When the same is considered in light of the medical records, which shows that the hymen of victim girl was torn and the investigation is already completed and the charge sheet is filed, under such circumstances, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pretrial punishment. The apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader can be taken care of by imposing suitable conditions. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the present petitioner may be enlarged on bail subject to conditions. Hence, I answer the above point in the ‘Affirmative’ and proceed to pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The petition is allowed.

¶44

¶45

The petitioner/accused in Crime No.167/2020 of Yellapur Police Station, is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to following conditions:

¶46

i. He shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/with two sureties for the

¶47

likesum.

¶48

ii. He shall not commit similar offences.

¶49

iii. He shall not threaten or tamper prosecution witnesses.

¶50

iv. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the Court as and when required.

¶51

It is needless to state that, if in case, the petitioner violates any of these conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to move the Trial Court to seek cancellation of bail.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

KGK

Manju S/O Yallappa Doddamani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju S/O Yallappa Doddamani 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

Kumar S/O Siddappa Swateppagol @ Godchi Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Milind S/O Tanaji Kadolkar Vs Shri. Naveed S/O Nazafali Khatib

Saresh K P @ Suresh S/O K.P.Dinesh Vs Suresh Babu S/O Sathyanarayana Rao

Sri. Kumar S/O Maruti Hanamikki Vs the State of Karnataka

Saddam Hussain S/O Bashasab Pailwan Vs the State of Karnataka

Maruti Balu Kitawadakar Vs the State of Karnataka