Allowed

Chidananda H.a., v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2022CRL.P/3844/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition for regular bail filed by the accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The case involved offences of kidnapping, rape, and POCSO. The court noted the victim is now a major and the parties are now living together. Bail was granted subject to stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to be released on bail in Crime No. 87/2021 subject to execution of personal bond and conditions to protect prosecution witnesses and prevent absconding.

Chidananda H.a., Vs State of Karnataka — Child Custody and Guardianship | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3844/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

CHIDANANDA H.A. S/O LATE ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT HARENAHALLI VILLAGE NITTUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK - 572211 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI CHETHAN B, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶12

KIBBANAHALLI POLICE STATION TIPTUR - 572201 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560001

¶13

2 . SUJATHA W/O ASHOK KUMARA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT YAGACHIKATTE VILLAGE KIBBANAHALLI HOBLI TIPTUR TALUK-572201 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. … RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1; SRI G.M.SHARAT KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.87/2021 OF KIBBANAHALLI POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.363, 344, 376, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 6 AND 17 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTIONS 9 AND 10 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT.

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused No.1 in respect of Crime No.87/2021 registered by Kibbanhalli Police Station, Tumakuru District, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 344, 376, 504, 506 read with 149 of IPC, Sections 6 and 17 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶21

¶22

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the mother of the victim girl filed a complaint with the Police stating knowing fully well that C.W.2 is a minor girl, this petitioner persuaded her and kidnapped C.W.2 from Anjaneyaswamy Temple with the help of accused Nos.2 to 6. When accused No.1 persuaded C.W.2 to marry her in spite of she had refused, he threatened her and stating that he would kill her and he would also die. He took the bangles and forcibly tied the Tali and also took the photographs. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 6 and C.W.2 were taken in the Car belongs to accused No.5 to the house of C.W.5 and left there itself. It is also alleged that from 20.08.2021 to 24.09.2021, accused No.1 continuously had the sexual intercourse with her. When C.W.1 went and informed C.W.3, accused Nos.2 to 6 abused in a filthy language and threatened. Hence, a case has been registered, investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶24

would submit that both of them are fell in love and the victim herself went with this petitioner and there was no any force.

¶25

¶26

Only at the instance of the mother of the victim, a false complaint is filed. The learned counsel would submit that she was not subjected to sexual act before the marriage; only after the marriage she was subjected to sexual act. It is also contended both of them have lived as husband and wife after the marriage from 20.08.2021 to 24.09.2021 for a period of 34 days and not wrongfully confined her as alleged in the charge-sheet. This petitioner is in custody from 20.12.2021 and no need of further custodial trial. The learned counsel also would submit that now the victim has attained the age of majority. She is visiting the house of this petitioner and now they are cordial. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶27

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that a specific allegation is made that forcibly she was taken and forcibly tied Tali and thereafter took her in a Car and left her in the house of C.W.5, wherein, she was subjected to sexual act continuously knowing fully well that she is a minor.

¶28

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2

¶30

would submit that the victim also visiting the house of this petitioner and both of them are cordial with each other and the victim mother is also present before the Court. The learned counsel also would submit that the mother says that there was a misconception, already they have married, they are going to live together and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case can be taken note of.

¶31

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, the mother had lodged a complaint at the first instance that this petitioner persuaded her and took her to a Temple and tied Tali and subjected her for sexual act. The police have also registered a case against accused Nos.2 to 6 alleging that they have assisted in taking the victim girl to a Temple. Other persons have been enlarged on bail. Having taken note of the factual aspects of the case that the victim girl is aged about 17½ years at the time of marriage and now she has attained the age of majority. No doubt, she was subjected to sexual act continuously and the

¶32

¶33

same is after the marriage and no allegation in the investigation records that prior to the marriage this petitioner has subjected her for sexual act. The 164 statement of the victim girl also reiterated the same. But she claims that forcibly her marriage was solemnized with this petitioner. Taken note of the factual aspects of the case and also subjecting her for sexual act after the marriage. The mother – complainant is also present before the Court and submits that the daughter is visiting the matrimonial house even this petitioner is in custody and they are going to live together in future. Having taken note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:-

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the

¶36

petitioner/accused No.1 shall be released on bail in Crime No.87/2021 registered by Kibbanhalli Police Station, Tumakuru District, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 344, 376, 504, 506 read with 149 of IPC, Sections 6 and 17 of POCSO

¶37

¶38

Act, 2012 and Sections 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage

¶39

Act, subject to the following conditions:-

¶40

(i) The petitioner shall execute 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 jurisdictional Court.

¶41

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

¶42

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

¶43

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court, till the case registered against him is disposed of.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

cp*

Chidananda H.a., v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chidananda H.a., 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

Manjunatha Vs the State

Sri. Reddappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Somachari Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Naveena @ Subsidy Naveena Vs the State of Karnataka

Dayananda Vs State of Karnataka

Anthony Raj. B, Vs the State of Karnataka