Allowed

Arun @ Arun Kumar R v. State by Women Police Station

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2022CRL.P/209/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the petitioner accused of acting as a middleman in the sale of a child under the Juvenile Justice Act and IPC, subject to specific bonds and investigation cooperation conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon arrest for Cr.No.135/2021 subject to bond of Rs.2,00,000 and conditions including monthly appearance before IO.

Arun @ Arun Kumar R Vs State by Women Police… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H P SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 209/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ARUN @ ARUN KUMAR R S/O LATE RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT TMP WARD NO.5 DIBBUR, TUMAKURU TOWN TUMAKURU - 572 101

¶9

.. PETITIONER

¶10

(By Sri.:MOHAMED UMMAR FAROOQ, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE BY WOMEN POLICE STATION TUMAKURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 01 ... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HCGP)

¶14

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.135/2021 OF WOMEN P.S., TUMAKURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 80 & 81 OF J.J. (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT) READ

¶15

¶16

WITH 34 IPC ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.135/2021 registered by the Tumakuru Police Station, Tumakuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 80 and 81 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act 2015 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶20

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.

¶21

The factual matrix of the case is that on the basis of information received, the District Child Protection Officer visited the house of accused No.1 on 16-12-2021 and at that time accused No.1 stated that

¶22

her friend accused No.2 has given child to her to look after for few days but on detailed questioning, accused

¶23

¶24

No.1 said that through her acquaintance with accused No.3, she came to know that accused No.2 is interested

¶25

in giving away her child and accordingly accused No.1 went to Bengaluru on 15-12-2021 and brought the child. The petitioner acted as a middleman in the said transaction and police have registered the case for the offence punishable under Sections 80 and 81 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act 2015 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that accused Nos.1 and 2 have been enlarged on bail and only information received is that this petitioner acted as a middleman in respect of the sale transaction and the offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

¶27

Per contra, the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent[-State would submit that the allegation against the petitioner is that he acted as middleman for the sale of child in favour of accused No.1. Hence prima facie case is made out against the petitioner.

¶28

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State and also taking note of the allegations made in the FIR, the specific allegation made against this petitioner that he acted as a middleman in the sale of child and the offence alleged is also not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the child subjected to sale is aged about 2 years 5 months and the matter is under investigation and accused Nos.1 and 2 are enlarged on bail by invoking Section 438 of Cr.PC, the petitioner is also entitled for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.PC. Taking note of the gravity of offence and nature of the offence that he acted as middleman the petitioner may be granted bail subject to certain conditions to assist the Investigation Officer during the course of investigation.

¶30

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his

¶33

¶34

arrest in connection with Crime No. Crime No.135/2021 registered by the Tumakuru Police Station, Tumakuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 80 and 81 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act 2015 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-

¶35

(i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.

¶36

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶37

(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.

¶38

¶39

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.

¶40

(v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30^th of every month between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Rsk/

Arun @ Arun Kumar R v. State by Women Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun @ Arun Kumar R v. State by Women Police Station

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. Mahesh M S Vs the State of Karnataka S H O

Rahul Reddy @ Chilla Rahul Reddy Vs State of Karnataka by

Sathish @ Sathya @ Kaduppa Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Hussain Vs State by Madivala P.S.

Shankara Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ramanji Vs State of Karnataka