Allowed

Santhosh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Jul 2021CRL.P/113/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cr. P. No. 113 of 2021 granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused in Crime No. 195 of 2019 for offences under Section 305 IPC and Section 12 POCSO Act, subject to conditions regarding bail bond, surrender, and witness conduct.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties, subject to conditions of surrender within 15 days and no tampering with witnesses.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.113 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SANTHOSH S/O MR. RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KURANDAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 160.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI L. MALLESH, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MALUR POLICE, MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 160, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, H.C.G.P.)

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.195 OF 2019 (S.C. NO.230 OF 2019) OF MALUR POLICE STATION, KOLAR, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 305 OF THE IPC AND SECTION 12 OF THE POCSO ACT.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.195 of 2019 registered by Malur Police Station, Kolar, for the offences punishable under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POSCO Act’).

¶21

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that, on 25-8-2019, Sri V. Narayanaswamy lodged a complaint alleging that her daughter Kumari Varsha (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), aged 16 years studying in I P.U.C. and used to travel by auto-rickshaw to the College.

¶23

¶24

The petitioner is said to have teasing the deceased and used to compel her to love him. After coming to know of the said act of the petitioner, the complainant and his family members advised the petitioner and in spite of that, the petitioner was making phone calls to the complainant, his wife and the deceased and whenever the deceased used to receive the call, the petitioner used to compel the deceased to love him. Due to which, the deceased committed suicide on 24-8-2019 by hanging. On the basis of the complaint, the respondent-Police are making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court for granting anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, this petition.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that in order to show the petitioner made phone calls to the parents of the deceased, or to the deceased, there is no call details record seized or produced by the Police. Further, there is no material to show that

¶26

¶27

the petitioner teased or compelled the deceased, just prior to her death. Investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.

¶28

Per contra , the learned High Court Government Pleader prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶29

Upon considering the arguments and perusal of the record, it goes to show that due to frequent phone calls made by the petitioner and compelling the deceased to love him, the deceased committed suicide. Investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed. In the charge-sheet, it is mentioned that the petitioner used to call from his mobile No.9980786511 to mobile No.9731708260 belonging to the complainant, and to mobile No.9591370881 belonging to the wife of the complainant. However, in spite of giving phone numbers, the Investigating Officer has not collected any call detail records (CDR) from the service provider in order to

¶30

¶31

connect the petitioner with crime. Therefore, I am of the view that if bail is granted to the petitioner by imposing certain conditions, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

Criminal petition is allowed . The respondentMalur Police Station, Kolar, is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.195 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Section 305 of the IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, subject to the following conditions:

¶34

i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶35

ii. Petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order;

¶36

¶37

iii. Petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offences;

¶38

iv. Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly; and

¶39

v. Petitioner shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

¶40

Further, if the Investigating Officer finds any further material, liberty is granted to file additional charge-sheet against the petitioner.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

kvk

Santhosh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh 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

Mallikarjuna C. @ Mallika Vs State of Karnataka

Shishir D Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Fardeen Shariff Vs State of Karnataka

Denis Kalu Vs State of Karnataka

Gopal Chatri Vs the State of Karnataka

Yallappa v Vs State of Karnataka