Allowed

Ranga @ Ranganatha v. State by Nyamathi Police

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2021CRL.P/210/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under IPC 363 and POCSO Act Sections 12, 18. Court allowed bail subject to conditions to ensure appearance and non-tampering.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties subject to conditions of not committing offences, tampering, and appearing as required.

Ranga @ Ranganatha Vs State by Nyamathi Police — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.210 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

Ranga @ Ranganatha, S/o. Late. Bheemappa, Aged about 23 years, Agriculturist, Residing at Shivanandappa Extension, Nyamathi Taluk, Davanagere District-577 223.

¶8

…Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri.Pranesh Chandra, Advocate)

¶10

AND :

¶11

State by Nyamathi Police Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka Building, Bengaluru-560 001.

¶12

… Respondent

¶13

(By Sri. K.S.Abhijith, Advocate)

¶14

This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.11/2018 (S.C.No.151/2019) of

¶15

¶16

Nyamathi Police Station, Davanagere District for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and Section.12, 18 of POCSO Act.

¶17

This Criminal petition coming on for orders, this day, the court made the following:-

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner-accused is before this Court

¶20

seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.11/2018 of Nyamathi Police Station, pending in S.C.No.151/2019 on the file of II Additional District

¶21

& Sessions Judge at Davanagere, registered for the offences punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and the charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and Section 12 & 18 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’) on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Makbul Sab.

¶22

¶23

Heard Sri. Pranesh Chandra, learned

¶24

Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.S. Abhijith, learned Counsel for the respondent -State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶25

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits

¶26

that the petitioner is the sole accused. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. The victim is stated to be 16 years of age at the time of incident. Even the victim has not made any allegations against the petitioner. On the other hand, the victim has stated that she is having love affair with the petitioner. The petitioner is aged about 22 years. The victim has not subjected herself for medical examination. There are no evidence to connect the petitioner to the offence in question. The investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. The victim is examined before the Court. Under such

¶27

¶28

circumstances, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioner 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. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶29

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. The victim is hardly 16 years of age at the time of incident. The charge sheet is filed by the investigation officer, which provides prima facie materials for having committed the offences. Considering the seriousness of the offences, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

¶31

5. In view of the rival contentions urged by

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’

¶35

for the following:

¶36

R E A S O N S

¶37

On perusal of the materials on record, it is

¶38

seen that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offence and it makes out prima facie case against the petitioner. However, admittedly the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. Admittedly, the petitioner is not required for further investigation. It is not the dispute, that the victim is already examined before the trial Court. Therefore, detention of the petitioner

¶39

¶40

in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to detain the petitioner in custody as the same would amount to infringement of her right to life and liberty. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶41

7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in ‘Affirmative’ and proceed to pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. The petition is allowed .

¶44

ii. The petitioner-accused is ordered to be

¶45

enlarged on bail in Crime No.11/2018, (S.C.No.151/2019) of Nyamathi Police Station, Davanagere District, on obtaining the bond in a sum

¶46

¶47

of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following

¶48

conditions:

¶49

a) The petitioner-accused shall not commit similar offences. b) The petitioner-accused shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶50

c) The petitioner-accused shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶51

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the

¶52

conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

Ranga @ Ranganatha v. State by Nyamathi Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranga @ Ranganatha v. State by Nyamathi Police

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

Sri. Nagaraju Vs State by Kunigal Police

Mohammed Aftab Vs State of Karnataka by

S. Praveena Vs the State of Karnataka by

Mr.G.Ganesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Tausif Khan @ Tausif Vs State of Karnataka

Ranga @ Ranganatha Vs State by Nyamathi Police