Allowed

Virupaksha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2021CRL.P/5699/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Kerala High Court allowed the petitioner's release on bond. The court found that while medical records supported the prosecution's case of sexual assault on a minor, the victim failed to support the prosecution in her Magisterial statement. Consequently, the Court held that continued detention amounted to pre-trial punishment, allowing bail s

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.108/2020 on obtaining a bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties.

Virupaksha Vs the State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5699 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

VIRUPAKSHA S/O ERAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT, PADUVALALU VILLAGE BIKKODU HOBLI BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 215.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI:PRATHEEP.K.C.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY AREHALLI POLICE STATION HASSAN DISTRICT REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 01.

¶13

BASAVARAJA S/O, LATE RAJAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT, PADUVALALU VILLAGE BIKKODU HOBLI BELUR TALUK HASSAN – 573215. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI:K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.207/2021 OF CR.NO.108/2020 OF AREHALLI POLICE STATION, HASSAN, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363, 376(2), 344 OF IPC AND SECTION 06 OF POCSO ACT.

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Spl.C.No.207/2021 of Cr.No.108/2020 (S.C.No.207/2021) of Arehalli Police Station, Hassan, pending on the file of Addl. Session Judge, Hassan, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(2) 344 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on basis of the first information lodged by informant-Basavaraja.

¶19

2. Heard Sri.Pradeep.K.C., learned Counsel for

¶20

the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶21

¶22

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶23

that the petitioner is the sole accused. He is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 14.04.2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. The matter is pending before the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Hassan in S.C.No.207/2021 for hearing before charge. The voluntary statement of the victim was recorded before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein she has categorically stated that she herself went with the petitioner and stayed with him. There are no allegations about the commission of sexual assault. The mother of the victim has given statement before the police specifically stating that her daughter is aged 17 years. There is absolutely no material to connect the petitioner to the offence. Now the victim is staying with her parents. Detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioner is the permanent

¶24

¶25

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.

¶26

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 has stated that she is aged 16 years but she was aged 14 years at the time of the incident. As per the medical records there was sexual assault on the victim. Now the matter is pending for trial. At this stage, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

“Whether the petitioner is

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

the following:

¶33

R E A S O N S

¶34

The materials on record disclose that serious

¶35

allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Medical records supports the case of the prosecution. It is stated that the date of birth of the victim is 05.01.2006 . Under such circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. However, the victim has not supported the case of prosecution, when her statement was recorded before learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the investigation is completed and

¶36

the charge sheet is also filed. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to infringement of his

¶37

¶38

right to life and liberty and amounts to pre-trial punishment. 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.

¶39

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶40

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The petition is allowed.

¶43

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.108/2020 (Spl.Case No.207/2021) of Arehalli Police Station, Hassan 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

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶45

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶49

On furnishing the sureties by the 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 the 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 the petitioner on bail.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

GVP

Virupaksha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virupaksha v. the 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

Ahmed Omer Ahmed Vs the State

Mr Edwin a Vs the State of Karnataka

Khathim K Vs State of Karnataka

Abdul Jabeer @ Jabeer Vs State of Karnataka

Prabhu @ Bhajanthri Vs State of Karnataka

Sathish Vs State of Karnataka