Allowed

Vinuth B.G. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 May 2022CRL.P/442/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition, the High Court granted bail to the petitioner charged with abduction, sexual assault, and child marriage offences. The court relied on the victim's statement regarding post-marriage consent to rule that custodial trial was not necessary.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, non-tampering with witnesses, court appearance, and restricted movement within jurisdiction.

Vinuth B.G. Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MAY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.442/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VINUTH B.G., S/O GANESH B.N., AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O BANANAKERE VILLAGE, NUGGEHALLI HOBLI, CHANANRAYAPATNA TALUK-573116. … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI JAGADEESHA H., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY NUGGEHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REPT. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560001. … RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI H.S. SHANKAR, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.509/2021 (CR.NO.133/2021) OF NUGGEHALLI P.S., HASSAN DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363 AND 376 OF IPC, SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTION 9 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1 AT HASSAN.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Spl.C.No.509/2021 (Crime No.133/2021) of Nuggehalli Police Station, Hassan District for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of IPC, Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’ for short) and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel 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 5 months. At the request of this petitioner she went to the bus shelter of her village and thereafter both the victim and this petitioner went to Hassan and then to Bengaluru. Both of them stayed in the room of the petitioner’s friend for a period of four days and thereafter married at Muneshwara Temple and then she was subjected to sexual act and she also gave consent. Both of them were apprehended and taken to Nuggehalli Police Station. The police

¶20

¶21

have registered the missing complaint based on the complaint and investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶23

both of them left on 01.10.2021 and complaint was given on 04.10.2021 and both of them after the marriage were apprehended on 09.10.2021. This petitioner is in custody from 09.10.2021 and investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet is filed. The victim went along with the petitioner since both of them fell in love with each other and they got married and after the marriage she was subjected to sexual act. At the most it attracts the offence under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and there is no need of custodial trial.

¶24

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that admittedly the victim girl is aged about 16 years 5 months and hence the question of consent does not arise since the victim girl

¶25

¶26

is below the age of 18 years as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act. The learned counsel submits that the fact that she was subjected to sexual act is also stated by the victim before the learned Magistrate and hence, there is a prima facie case against the petitioner.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶28

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and also on perusal of 164 statement of the victim girl, she categorically stated that when this petitioner called her she went near the bus stop and both of them went to Hassan and thereafter to Bangalore and stayed in the house of the friend of this petitioner and thereafter both of them married

¶29

at Muneshwara Temple and then both of them had sex with consent. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case with regard to the fact that the victim was subjected to sexual act only after marriage and not prior to the marriage and her statement is very clear that she was subjected to sexual act only after the marriage and when such being the material available on record and this petitioner is in custody from 09.10.2021 and investigation has already been completed and

¶30

¶31

hence there is no need of custodial trial. Hence, it is appropriate

¶32

to enlarge the petitioner on bail subject to conditions.

¶33

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶34

following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Spl.C.No.509/2021 (Crime No.133/2021) of Nuggehalli Police Station, Hassan District for

¶37

the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of IPC, Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, subject to the following conditions:

¶38

(i) The petitioner shall execute his 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.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

¶42

(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.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Vinuth B.G. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinuth B.G. 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

Sri Manoj N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Chandrashekara. M. B. Vs State by

Susheela Bai Vs State of Karnataka

Omkara Vs State of Karnataka

Naveen @ Smile Naveen Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H S Manju Vs State of Karnataka