Dismissed

Sri. Bharamappa K v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2021CRL.P/2339/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal petition for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka considered allegations of kidnapping, forced marriage, and rape against a petitioner. The court dismissed the bail plea, citing the seriousness of the offences involving a minor victim and the necessity of the petitioner's trial presence.

What did the court decide?

No bail granted; petition dismissed.

Sri. Bharamappa K Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2339 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

Sri. Bharamappa.K W/o Late Kallingappa aged 38 years resident of Hunasekatte Village Davanagere Taluk, Davanagere.

¶8

…Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri. Tony Sebastian, Senior Advocate for Smt. Reny Sebastian, Advocate)

¶10

AND :

¶11

State of Karnataka By Rural Police Station Davanagere, Represented by SPP High Court Building Bengaluru-560 001.

¶12

Sri. Karibasappa K.B, S/o Basavarajappa K.S Aged about 42 years R/at Allur Village, Davanagere, Karnataka-577 002.

¶13

… Respondents

¶14

(By Sri. H.R.Showri, Advocate)

¶15

¶16

This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.219/2020 (S.C.No.114/2020) registered by Davanagere Rural Police Station, Davanagere for the offence punishable under Section 4, 6 & 17 of POCSO Act, Section 9, 10 & 11 of Child Marriage Restraint Act and Section 114, 109, 506, 376, 363 read wit 34 of IPC.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.219/2020 of Davanagere Rural Police Station, pending in S.C.No.114/2020 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Davanagere, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 109, 506, 342, 114 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections, 4, 6, 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’) and Section 9, 10, & 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage

¶20

¶21

Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Karibasappa K.B.

¶22

Heard Sri. Tony Sebastian, learned senior Counsel for Smt. Reny Sebastian, counsel for the petitioner and Sri. H.R. Showri, learned Counsel for the respondent -State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶23

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits

¶24

that the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 29.09.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody. It is alleged that the victim girl was forcibly kidnapped by the petitioner and she was forced to marry him and committed sexual assault on her. The medical records do not support the contention of the prosecution and so also

¶25

¶26

the FSL report. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. Under such circumstances, detention of the petitioner in custody is not required for any purpose, except, to ensure his presence before the trial Court. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. 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.

¶27

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. He is the main accused against whom serious allegations are made. The victim and the petitioner are distant relatives. The petitioner is aged 38 years and abducted the minor girl aged 15 years and 5 months, forcibly married her

¶28

¶29

with the help of other accused. He has committed sexual assault on her. It is clear from the medial report, wherein, she has clearly mentioned the history before the Medical Officer. Even the hymen was intact. The statement of the victim is recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein, she has fully supported the case of prosecution. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶31

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

¶32

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative' for

the following:

R E A S O N S

On perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. The victim girl is aged 15 years at the time of incident. The father of the victim lodged the first information regarding missing of the victim girl. Subsequently, the victim was traced and she was subjected to medical examination. The hymen was not intact. Her statement under Section 164 was recorded, wherein she has fully supported and deposed against all the accused persons. It is stated that the present petitioner is a distant relative of the victim and accused Nos.2 to 5 are his relatives, who forced the victim girl to marry accused No.1. Considering all these facts & circumstances, it is not safe to enlarge the petitioner on bail as the victim is required to depose before the Court regarding the offence

¶37

¶38

committed by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

¶39

At this stage, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks direction to trial Court to hold the trial expeditiously. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial expeditiously taking into consideration that the petitioner is in judicial custody.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Sri. Bharamappa K v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Bharamappa K v. 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

Veerendra. P. S. Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri. Mahadevappa @ Manthri Vs State of Karnataka

Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka

K Madhu @ Mada Vs State of Karnataka by S.H.O.

John Nonso Egwu Vs State of Karnataka

Azubike Udealor Francis Vs State of Karnataka