Allowed

Sri M.C.Girisha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2022CRL.P/3793/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. allowing anticipatory bail for the petitioner in a case involving offences under IPC and POCSO. Court noted that the petitioner and victim had lived as husband and wife after an illegal marriage of a minor. Bail granted subject to surrender, sureties, non-tampering with witnesses, and not fleeing jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner shall be released on bail via personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties in the event of arrest, subject to conditions.

Sri M.C.Girisha Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3793/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI M.C. GIRISHA S/O CHALUVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT ATHUPPE VILLAGE K.R.PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571812. … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI PRAVEENA KUMARA NIRVANI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY K.R.PETE RURAL POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU -560 001. … RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.243/2021 REGISTERED BY K.R.PETE RURAL POLICE STATION, MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.354(D), 376(2)(N), 366 AND 114 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 6, 12, 17 OF POCSO ACT.

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.243/2021 registered by K.R. Pet Rural Police Station, Mandya District, for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 114 and 506 of IPC, Sections 6, 12, 17 of POCSO Act and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2016.

¶18

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

¶19

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the victim girl is aged about 16 years and 6 months. That on 07.04.2021, even though the victim was a minor, this petitioner married her as against law at Eshwara Temple. Thereafter, she joined the matrimonial home and the marriage was also performed by other accused persons. A case has been

¶20

¶21

registered. The Police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 354(D), 376(2)(N), 366 and 114 of IPC, Sections 6, 12, 17 of POCSO Act. and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2016.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶23

would submit that at the first instance a case has been registered only for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2016. This petitioner was enlarged on bail vide order dated 14.01.2022 in respect of the offence under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2016 and subsequently, other offences are invoked. The counsel would submit that the statement of the victim is very clear that, after the marriage only she was subjected to sexual act and both of them have led the life as husband and wife. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for bail.

¶24

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State would submit that though the case is

¶25

¶26

registered at the first instance invoking Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2016, subsequently, based on the further statement, other offences are invoked for subjecting the minor girl for sexual act.

¶27

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, earlier case has been registered for the offence under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2016 and the Sessions Judge also granted bail vide order dated 14.01.2022 and subsequently, other offences are invoked i.e., Sections 376(2)(n), 114 and 506 of IPC and Sections 6, 12 and 17 of POCSO Act. Having taken note of peculiar circumstances

¶28

of the case and already the said marriage was performed by the accused persons and both of them have led their life as husband and wife and also taking note of the fact that, earlier while filing the case, invoked only the offences under the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2016 and subsequently, other penal provisions while filing the charge-sheet are invoked, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of

¶29

¶30

Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner, subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:-

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.243/2021 registered by K.R. Pet Rural Police Station, Mandya, for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 114 and 506 of IPC, Sections 6, 12, 17 of POCSO Act and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2016 , subject to the following conditions:-

¶33

(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 like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission till the disposal of the case.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

cp*/ST

Sri M.C.Girisha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M.C.Girisha v. 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

Neelappa Agadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Balaji C Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Naresh Das Vs State of Karnataka

Manjunatha Vs the State

Sri. Reddappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Somachari Vs State of Karnataka