Allowed

Nikhil D L v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2021CRL.P/6335/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving offences under IPC Sections 363 and 376, POCSO Section 6, and PCM Act Section 9. The court granted bail subject to a bond and conditions preventing tampering and ensuring appearance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail after furnishing a bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions not to commit offences or tamper with witnesses and to appear as required.

Nikhil D L Vs State of Karnataka by — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6335/2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

NIKHIL.D.L. S/O LAKKE GOWDA AGED 21 YEARS R/O DODDABEMMATHI VILLAGE MALLIPATNA HOBLI ARAKALAGUDU TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 130.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI:MANJUNATH.B.R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KONANUR POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI:VINAYAKA.V.S., HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.312/2021 OF CR.NO.65/2021 OF KONANUR POLICE STATION, HASSSAN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER

¶16

¶17

SECTIONS 363, 376 OF IPC SEC.6 OF POCSO ACT AND SEC.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 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Spl.C.No.312/2021 of Crime No.65/2021 of Konanur Police Station, Hassan, pending on the file of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Hassan, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), and under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’) and under Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, (for short ‘PCM Act’) on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Rajappa.

¶21

Heard Sri.Manjunath.B.R., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Vinayaka.V.S. learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶22

¶23

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that 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 16.06.2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. It is stated that the victim girl is aged 17 years. Missing complaint was registered by the father of the victim girl and after her returning to the house, FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 of POCSO Act. Statement of the victim under Section

¶24

164 of Cr.P.C. is recorded by the learned Magistrate. Victim has not supported the case of prosecution. Since the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for further investigation. The victim herself has stated that she was in love affair with the petitioner. Under such circumstances no offence could be alleged against the petitioner. His detention in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. He is not having any criminal antecedents. He is the permanent resident of

¶25

¶26

the address mentioned in the cause tile 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 Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is recorded, wherein, she has fully supported the case of prosecution. The charge sheet is already filed, which makes out a strong prima-facie evidence against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on 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

¶30

“Whether the petitioner is

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

the following:

¶34

R E A S O N S

¶35

The materials on record disclose that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. However, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., discloses the commission of offences by the petitioner. Under such circumstances it cannot be concluded at this stage that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. However, it is not the contention of prosecution that the petitioner is required for further investigation or that he is having any criminal antecedents. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to infringement 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

¶36

¶37

apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶38

Accordingly, I answer the above point in

¶39

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The petition is allowed.

¶42

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Spl.C.No.312/2021 of Crime No.65/2021 of Konanur 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:

¶43

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶44

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

¶45

¶46

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

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

GVP

Nikhil D L v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil D L v. 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

Syed Suhail @ Suhail @ Papaya Vs State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Sharukh Khan

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Umesha

Ahmed Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Numan Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Feeroz Khan Vs State of Karnataka by