Allowed

Umesh a v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2021CRL.P/4694/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Karnataka allowed bail to the petitioner accused of offences under IPC 366, 376 and POCSO Sections 5, 6. The court held bail was warranted despite completed investigation and charge-sheet filing, as the victim's Section 164 statement did not confirm sexual assault despite medical opinion, and prolonged custody infringed liberty rights.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail by executing a bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions.

Umesh a Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4694 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

UMESH A S/O ANANTAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS C/O KHADHARSHARIF HOUSE NEAR HOODI RAILWAY GATE BENGALURU-560048

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SANTOSH S GOGI, ADVOCATE (VC))

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MAHADEVAPURA POLICE REPRESENTED BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU. (BY SRI K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP (PH))

¶13

… RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP (PH)) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.378/2020 (SPL.C.C.NO.156/2021) REGISTERED BY MAHADEVAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 366, 376 OF IPC AND SECTION 6, 5(L) OF POCSO ACT.

¶14

¶15

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

¶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.378/2020 of Mahadevapura Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC read with Sections 5 and 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 – Smt.Renuka.

¶18

Heard Sri.Santhosh S Gogi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.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 the sole accused. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 15.12.2020 and since then, he is in

¶20

¶21

judicial custody. As per the case made out by the prosecution, the victim girl was found missing from 04.12.2020 and she was subjected to medical examination on 17.12.2020. No external injuries were found on the body of the victim. According to the informant, the victim girl had eloped with the accused. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Under such 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.

¶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. The victim was aged about 15 years and 9 months at the time of incident. She has given history of the incident before the Medical Officer, which

¶23

¶24

clearly makes out the offence committed by the petitioner. As per the opinion given by the Medical Officer, the commission of sexual intercourse is indicated on examination. However, in the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she has not stated regarding the sexual assault. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet is already filed. Looking to the seriousness of the offences, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶25

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

¶26

“Whether the petitioner is entitled

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

the following:

¶30

R E A S O N S

¶31

The materials on record discloses that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having

¶32

¶33

committed the offences. However, the petitioner is in judicial custody since 15.12.2020. It is not in dispute that the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. Even though the medical report suggests the commission of sexual assault, the Victim has not stated regarding the same in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The materials on record prima-facie show that the victim had eloped with the petitioner. But, looking to the age of the victim, the same cannot be taken into consideration. Admittedly, the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to infringement of his right to life and liberty. Accordingly, I answer the above point in affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petition is allowed .

¶36

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.378/2020 of Mahadevapura Police Station on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two

¶37

¶38

Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶39

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences;

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

NBM

Umesh a v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh a 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

Sri. Ramaiah Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Ganesh @ Gani Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Devaki Vs State by Halasuru Gate Police

Sri Venkatesh G Vs State of Karnataka

Arvind K.T. @ Babu Vs State of Karnataka by

Mohammed Moin Vs State of Karnataka