Allowed

Ranga @ Ranganatha v. State by Nyamathi Police

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2021CRL.P/245/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for a petitioner accused of sexual offences under IPC and POCSO. Despite prima facie case and ruptured hymen, the court ruled detention was pre-trial punishment unless conditions of bond were met.

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 further offences and not tampering with witnesses.

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.245 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

Mr. Maqbool Saab, S/o. Ameer Saab, Aged about 45 years, Shivanandappa Layout,

¶13

¶14

Nyamathi, Davanagere District-577 223.

¶15

… Respondents

¶16

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

¶17

This Criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.177/2018 (S.C.No.220/2018) registered by Nyamathi Police Station, Davanagere District for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 344 of IPC and Section 5(L) & 6 of POSCO Act.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner-accused is before this Court

¶21

seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.177/2018 of Nyamathi Police Station, pending in S.C.No.220/2018 on the file of II Additional District & Sessions Judge at Davanagere registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 344 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and the charge sheet is filed for the offences

¶22

¶23

punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 344 and for an offence punishable under Section5(L) & 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’) on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Maqbool Sab.

¶24

Heard Sri. Pranesh Chandra, learned 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 petitioner was more than 17 years of age at the time of the incident. The statement of the victim under Section 164 was recorded in which the victim has not made any allegations against the present

¶27

¶28

petitioner. On the other hand, she has stated that she voluntary went along with the petitioner and stayed in his aunt’s house. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. The victim is also examined before the trial Court. Under such circumstances, the 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 offence. Learned counsel further submitted that earlier Cr.No.11/2018 has been registered against this petitioner for committing similar offence. After investigation, a detailed charge

¶30

¶31

sheet is filed. Even though the victim has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the commission of the sexual assault, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the medical report discloses that her hymen was ruptured. As per the medical information, the commission of sexual assault cannot be ruled out. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

In view of the rival contentions urged by 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’ for the following:

¶35

¶36

R E A S O N S

¶37

On perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offence and it makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner. Even though on the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she has not supported the case of the prosecution about the sexual assault on her, she has stated that she voluntarily went with the petitioner and stayed in his aunt’s house. Admittedly, the charge sheet is already filed and the victim is examined before the trial Court. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not required to be detained in custody. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment and would amount to infringement of his right to life and liberty. I do not find any reason to detain the petitioner in custody. Hence, I am of the

¶38

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. The petition is allowed .

¶43

ii. The petitioner-accused is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.177/2018, (S.C.No.220/2018) of Nyamathi Police Station, Davanagere District, on obtaining the bond in a sum 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 conditions:

¶44

¶45

a) The petitioner-accused shall not commit similar offences.

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the

¶49

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

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

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