Partly allowed

Shakthi @ Sakthimurthy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2022CRL.P/2512/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed Crl.Petition setting aside trial Court order that dismissed bail by reconsidering merits instead of addressing non-appearance grounds. Court directed Files to be reconsidered with judicious thought process under Ramesh Bhavan Rathod.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed in-part; order dated 01.12.2021 set aside; trial Court directed to reconsider matter afresh within two weeks with judicious mind.

Shakthi @ Sakthimurthy Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2512 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHAKTHI @ SAKTHIMURTHY S/O LATE BASKAR, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT SATU HOUSE, OPP. TO SURIYA ENTERPRISES, RAGHAVENDRA LAY-OUT, BEGUR, BENGALURU-560074.

¶9

PERMANENT ADDRESS AT: NO.878, MUPPANAR KOVIL STREET, POLLAI COLONY, POTTAI POST, VILUPPURAM, SANKARAPURA DIST, TAMILNADU-606401.

¶10

(BY SRI.MURALI M, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BEGUR POLICE,

¶13

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

SRI.PERUMAL S/O SETU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT SURYA ENTERPRISES, SETU HOUSE, RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT,

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

¶17

BEGUR, BENGALURU-560074.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1, R2-SERVED)

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. TO ENLARGE THE PETITONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.184/2018 OF BEGURU P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 4, 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTIONS 376, 506 OF IPC PENDING IN SPL.C.C.NO.749/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE FTSC-I, ADDITINAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.

¶21

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

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail of the petitioner/accused in Crime No.184/2018 of Begur Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POSCO Act.

¶24

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶25

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that this petitioner has committed an offence of sexual act

¶26

¶27

against the minor girl and hence, invoked the offence under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POSCO Act and the trial Court has granted bail imposing some conditions on 11.12.2018 and thereafter, this petitioner did not appear before the trial Court and hence, separate criminal miscellaneous was filed in Crl.Mis.No.9334/2021 before the trial Court wherein also stated the reason that the petitioner was suffering from some ill-health, hence, could not appear before the trial Court and the learned counsel has also not intimated to the petitioner and in the meanwhile, there was a Covid-19 pandemic situation, hence, the accused was residing in his native place and suffering from fever.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contend that the trial Court has already exercised the discretion in favour of the petitioner and for the above reasons, he could not appear before the trial Court and the said bail petition was rejected by the trial Court, once again, considering the matter on merits and not considering the reasons mentioned in the petition for jumping of the bail.

¶29

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

¶30

for the respondent-State would submit that once bail was granted by exercising discretion has been misused by this

¶31

¶32

petitioner herein and not complied with the bail conditions. Hence, he is not entitled for bail.

¶33

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly annexure-B, the order passed by the Presiding Officer narrated the brief facts of the case and also narrated the grounds for bail considering the matter on merits. Once, already the Court has granted bail considering the merits of the case vide order dated 11.12.2018, the Presiding Officer ought not to have considered the matter on merits and ought to have considered the reasons assigned in the application for non-appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court. But nothing is mentioned in the order. Even not discussed anything about jumping of bail and on reading of entire reasons in point No.1, considered the matter afresh again on merits and on the very approach of the Presiding Officer is deprecating and ought not to have considered the matter on merits. Once Predecessor has considered the same and passed an order on merits and the same is nothing but once again reconsidering the matter afresh on merits and which clearly discloses the callous attitude of the Presiding Officer and in paragraph No.3 of the bail petition specifically mentioned the reason for non-appearance and

¶34

¶35

preventing the petitioner to appear before the Court and nothing is discussed in respect of paragraph No.3 of the petition and instead of passed an order erroneously and even without looking into the grounds of the bail petition filed by the petitioner, as if, disposed of the matter afresh. Hence, it is appropriate to set aside the order passed by the trial Court and directed to consider the matter based on the grounds urged by the petitioner within two weeks from today. Since, the order has been passed for non-application of the judicious mind and not made any judicial thought process while passing an order as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh

¶36

Bhavan Rathod vs Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli and another ) reported in 2021 (6) SUPREME COURT 230, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:

¶37

"Grant of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is a matter involving the exercise of judicial discretion. Judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail, as in the case of any other discretion which is vested in a Court as a judicial institution, is not unstructured. The duty to record reasons is a significant safeguard which ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to the Court is exercised in a judicious manner. The recording of reasons in a judicial order ensures that the thought process underlying the order is subject

¶38

¶39

to scrutiny and that it meets objective standards of reason and justice."

¶40

Having perused the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Presiding Officer has not applied judicious mind and not made any judicial thought process. It appears that the order is passed without looking into the material, except mentioning the facts of the case and grounds for bail. In the order of bail also, nothing is mentioned about ground No.3 of the petition. A common standardized objections are mentioned in the order. Hence, the very conduct of the Presiding Officer is deprecated. This Court has noticed the similar order in other case wherein, considered the matter on merits and not considered the grounds of jumping of bail reasons and passed an order and also directed to communicate the order in spite of similar order is passed.

¶41

Though, this Court is not exercising the appellate jurisdiction, but having taken note of the order passed by the trial Court, directed to reopen the case in Crl. Misc.No.9334/2021 and consider ground No.3 urged in the bail petition and pass the order as judicious approach is necessary in the matter and hence, directed to reconsider the matter afresh.

¶42

¶43

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶44

following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) Criminal petition is allowed in-part setting aside the order date 01.12.2021 passed in Crl.Misc.No.9334/2021 by the FTSC-I, Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶47

(ii) The Presiding officer is directed to consider the matter afresh in Crl.Misc.No.9334/2021, apply judicious mind, make an endeavour to do thought process and pass an order as observed above in the order.

¶48

(iii) The trial Court is directed to consider the matter afresh within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice

¶50

of this Court that now, the matter is assigned to the FTC-3, but the matter was disposed of by FTC-1. Hence, put-up the file before the very same Presiding Officer to consider the matter afresh. The Presiding Officer should know the reason for setting aside the order and to improve the standard of passing the order in the interest of the Institution to dispense justice to seekers of justice.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

JS/-

Shakthi @ Sakthimurthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakthi @ Sakthimurthy 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prajwal @ Gunda Vs State of Karnataka

Anandkumar S C Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraja K.S. @ Naga Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Prashanth Pandey Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jayaramaiah B M Vs State of Karnataka

Boregowda Vs State of Karnataka