Allowed

Chethan Naik v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2021CRL.P/5833/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was filed seeking bail for an accused charged with offences under the IPC and POCSO Act, including kidnapping and sexual assault on a minor. The High Court allowed bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

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

Chethan Naik Vs the State of Karnataka by — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5833 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

CHETHAN NAIK S/O BALU NAIK OCC:AGRICULTURIST AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/O MUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 103.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY LEARNED COUNSEL SRI.P.B.UMESH, FOR SRI.R.B.DESHPANDE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ARASIKERE RURAL POLICE STATION ARASIKERE RURAL CIRCLE HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 103 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

MANJANAIK

¶14

S/O SOMLANAIK OCC:BUSINESS AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O MUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 103. … RESPONDENTS

¶15

¶16

(BY SRI:H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP (PH))

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.151/2020 OF ARASIKERE RURAL POLICE STATION, HASSAN, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 366A, 376(2), 114, 344, 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTION 9 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner-accused No.01 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.151/2020 of Arasikere Rural Police Station, Hassan, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366A 376(2), 114, 344 R/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), and Section 6 of POCSO Act 2012 and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child marriage (Karnataka Amendment) Act 2016 on the basis of first information lodged by the informant-Manjanaik.

¶21

Heard Sri.R.B.Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.H.R.Showri, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶22

¶23

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶24

that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1. 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 19.04.2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. It is alleged that the petitioner kidnapped the minor girl, aged 15 years and committed sexual assault. Initially missing complaint was registered by the father of the victim, suspecting the role of present petitioner. The petitioner is aged 20 years. Even though the statement of the victim was recorded before the learned Magistrate, she has not stated anything about the sexual assault committed by the petitioner. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. The petitioner is not required for further investigation or that he is having criminal antecedents. Since investigation is already completed, the detention of petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the

¶25

¶26

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. Statement of the victim under 164 is recorded wherein, she has stated that and she had been with the petitioner and both of them have married and residing together for 6 to 7 months. The medical records supports the contention of the prosecution. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

¶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 allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offence. It is stated that the petitioner committed forcible sexual assault on the victim who is aged 15 years, after abducting and marrying her. The statement of the victim recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. discloses that she has specifically stated before the learned Magistrate that she had been with the petitioner and stayed with him about 6 to 7 months, after both of them getting married. All these materials Prima facie constitute the offence as contended by the prosecution as admittedly the victim is a minor aged 15 years. However, the victim has not specifically stated that she has been sexually assaulted by the petitioner during her stay with him. The medical records supports such contention of the prosecution. However, the investigation is completed and

¶35

¶36

the charge sheet is also filed. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is required for further investigation or that he is having any criminal antecedents. The petitioner is aged 20 years of age. His detention in custody would amount to infringement of his right to life and liberty and it may bring him in contact with hardcore criminals who may be in the prison. Under such circumstances, 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.

¶37

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶38

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petition is allowed.

¶41

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.151 of 2020 of Arasikere Police Station, Hassan

¶42

¶43

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

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

¶46

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

¶47

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the

¶48

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.

¶50

¶51

The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

GVP/AM

Chethan Naik v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chethan Naik v. the State of Karnataka by

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

Dinesh S Vs State of Karnataka by

Jagadish Vs State of Karnataka

Mukunda H H Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Haisha @ Rudresha B E Vs State of Karnataka

Ismail Zabiulla Vs the State of Karnataka

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