Allowed

Shakthi Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2021CRL.P/4377/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the court considered allegations of sexual assault on a minor victim under IPC and POCSO. Noting the victim did not support the prosecution case and the state did not seek continued detention, the court granted bail subject to standard conditions including securing a surety bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in crime No.190/2020 on bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering or absconding.

Shakthi Kumar Vs State of Karnataka — Child Custody and Guardianship | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4377 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SHAKTHI KUMAR, S/O S.MURUGAN, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT LAKSHMI COMPLEX, KUMBARAPET, K.R.MARKET, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶8

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND :

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HEBBAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶11

… RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI.K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.190/2020 (SPL.C.C.NO.1163/2020) REGISTERED BY HEBBAL POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363, 366(A), 376 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶15

2 -

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.190/2020 of Hebbal Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act on the basis of first information lodged by the informant Smt. Manjula.

¶18

Heard Sri. H.P.Leeladhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as sole accused. He is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 04.11.2020 and since then, he is in judicial custody. It is alleged that petitioner has committed sexual assault on the victim girl who is aged about 17 years 4 months and 23 days. In fact, victim is major. Her

¶20

¶21

statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded, wherein, she has not supported the case of prosecution. Investigation is already completed and chargesheet is filed. He is not required to be detained in custody, except to ensure his presence before trial Court. Detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment and denial of his right to life and liberty. Petitioner is not having criminal antecedent. He 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.

¶22

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Victim is minor aged about 17 years. Petitioner under promise to marry induced her and committed sexual assault. Investigation is completed and chargesheet is filed. Medical report also supports the case of prosecution. Under such circumstances, petitioner is not

¶23

¶24

entitled to be released on bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶25

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

¶26

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for

¶27

grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶28

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the

¶29

following:

¶30

R E A S O N S

¶31

The materials on record disclose that, serious allegations are made against the present petitioner for having committed the offences. It is stated that victim is minor aged 17 years. Medical report also supports the case of prosecution. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. However, copy of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate is produced

¶32

before this Court for perusal, by the learned HCGP. It goes to show that the victim has not supported the case of

¶33

¶34

prosecution about commission of sexual assault. Admittedly, investigation is completed and chargesheet is filed. It is not the contention of the prosecution that petitioner is required to be detained in custody. Therefore, his detention in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment and denial of his 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.

¶35

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition is allowed.

¶38

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.190/2020 of Hebbal Police Station, 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:

¶39

¶40

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

If in case, the petitioner violates any of these conditions, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail.

¶44

On furnishing the sureties by petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing petitioner on bail.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

pgg

Shakthi Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakthi Kumar 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

M Harsha Vs the State of Karnataka by

Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka by

Samiulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Gajendra Alies Gaja Vs State of Karnataka

Mogli @ Irfan Pasha Vs the State

Mr Syed Dada Peer Vs the State of Karnataka