Allowed

Yogesha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2021CRL.P/1773/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by an accused charged with offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act., subjecting the petitioner to a bond, non-tampering conditions, and jurisdiction restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner accused released on bail bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties subject to conditions against tampering and absconding.

Yogesha 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 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1773 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

YOGESHA S/O. SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT KURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE, SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN – 34.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SAMPATH KUMAR R.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, HASSAN DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶12

PARVATHI D/O. CHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, RESIDING AT KURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE, SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN – 34, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER.

¶13

¶14

2(a). CHANDRA

¶15

S/O. LATE SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT KURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE, SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN – 34.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI ANAND H., ADV., FOR SRI LETHIF, ADV., FOR R-2(a); R-2 IS DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 17.06.2021)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.110/2020 (SPL.C.NO.3/2021) REGISTERED BY HASSAN WOMEN POLICE STATION, HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376(2)(N) OF THE IPC AND SECTIONS 6 AND 12 OF THE POCSO ACT.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting regular bail in Crime No.110/2020 registered by Hassan Women Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’).

¶22

¶23

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint filed by the victim herself to the Police on 4.11.2020, the Police registered a case. It is alleged by her in her statement that she is elder daughter to her father and having younger brother. Her mother left the house long back when she was a child. She is studying in 9^th standard. Due to pandemic she used to attend her classes through online. One Thirumala Bhovi who is the far relative of their family was staying behind their house. AccusedYogesha was the son of Thirumala Bhovi and the mother of the accused was dead. The father of the accused sacked him out of the house as he was drunken and due to which, the accused was staying in the house of the victim along with the victim’s father and grand mother for the last five years. Later her father and grand mother were planning to

¶25

¶26

perform marriage of the victim with the accused after she completes the age of 18 years. When things stood thus that on 3.11.2020 the victim was suffering from stomach pain and when she was taken to the hospital, the doctor confirmed that the victim is pregnant of six months. She has stated that during September 2020, the accused used to have sexual intercourse with her whenever her father and grand mother went out of the house. Due to which she became pregnant. After registering the case, the Police arrested this petitioner on 5.11.2020 and he was remanded to the judicial custody. He approached the Special Court for granting bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the case. He is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for granting bail.

¶28

¶29

Per contra, learned High Court Government

¶30

Pleader objected the bail petition and prayed for rejecting the bail petition.

¶31

Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader and informant which reveals that on the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., before the Magistrate on 18.11.2020 where she has stated that the accused and herself were in the same house. On her consent, the accused had intercourse with her whenever the father and grandmother of the victim went out of the house and therefore, she became pregnant. She has also stated that the accused is looking after her family by spending money for day to day expenditure. There is no fault of accused and he has not committed any offence and she herself gave consent for sexual intercourse. Of course, the statement of the victim reveals that accused had intercourse with her consent. But as she is a minor, aged below 18 years, her consent in immaterial.

¶32

¶33

Looking to the entire charge-sheet material on

¶34

record which goes to show that the accused was staying in the house of informant for last 4-5 years prior to his arrest. The father and the grand mother of the victim proposed her marriage with the accused and the elders were waiting the victim to attain the age of majority to perform marriage with the accused. By taking advantage of those words, both the victim and the accused fell in love and whenever the elders were out of the house, they used to have intercourse and thereby, the victim became

¶35

pregnant. In February 2021, she gave birth to a male child. The investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed. Therefore, by looking to the peculiar circumstances of the case, I am of the view that without expressing any opinion regarding the merits of the case, by imposing certain conditions, if the bail is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following

¶36

¶37

ORDER

¶38

Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed .

¶39

The trial Court is directed to release the petitioner-

¶40

accused on bail in Crime No.110/2020 registered by Hassan Women Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, subject to the following conditions:

¶41

(i) Petitioner-accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶42

(ii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;

¶43

(iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly;

¶44

(iv) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the trial Court;

¶45

¶46

(v) Petitioner shall take trial without causing any delay.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

GBB

Yogesha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesha 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

Gopa Ram @ Gopal Vs the State of Karnataka

Uday Vs State of Karnataka

Paul Ikechukwu Obba Vs State by Karnataka by

Mr Amanul Haseen Vs State of Karnataka

Frank Sunday Ibeabuchi Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Mohammed Fazil Vs State of Karnataka