Allowed

Awez @ Uvez v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2022CRL.P/4774/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed bail for a minor petitioner accused of kidnapping and sexual offences under IPC and POCSO. The court noted the petitioner's minority age and medical opinions suggesting no evidence of forcible intercourse, granting release conditioned upon a bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail for Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum.

Awez @ Uvez 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 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4774/2022

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

AWEZ @ UVEZ S/O MEHABOOB AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS R/A AT VTC-HOSUR GOWRIBIDANUR-561208 CHIKKABALLAUR DISTRICT

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI CHETHAN B, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY WOMEN POLICE TUMAKURU-572101 REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001

¶13

2 . SMT. UMA P W/O LATE MUDDURAJU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO SRIRAMANAGARA TUMAURU-572102

¶14

… RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN

¶17

¶18

CRIME NO.10/2022 OF TUMAKURU WOMEN POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 506, 504, 363, 376OF IPC AND SECTION 6 OF THE POCSO ACT AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking

¶22

regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.10/2022 of Tumakuru Women Police Station, Tumakuru for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 363, 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶23

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

¶24

The factual matrix of the case is that on 27.01.2022,

¶25

the daughter of the complainant left the house to go to the college, but she did not go there and on enquiry, it revealed that she has not attended the college and this petitioner was torturing her daughter and also abused and threatened the complainant that he will kill her son hence, this petitioner might

¶26

¶27

have kidnapped her daughter. Based on the complaint, at the first instance, the case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 504, 506 of IPC and at the time of filing the charge-sheet, Section 6 of POCSO Act was also invoked against this petitioner.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶29

would submit that this petitioner is falsely implicated in the case and allegation of sexual assault is made referring 9 months back incident in 164 statement and the same goes back to June 2021 and the counsel in support of his argument that the petitioner is also a minor, placed a memo along with the school document wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 10.10.2003 and also in

¶30

the marks card and school certificate for the year 2017-2018, the date of birth is mentioned as 10.10.2003 and claims that the petitioner is also a minor and he has been in custody from the date of his arrest hence, the punishment provided is three years and he may be enlarged on bail.

¶31

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

¶32

Pleader appearing for the State would submit that as per the school records placed on record by the counsel for the petitioner,

¶33

¶34

the petitioner is a minor and the specific allegation is made in the 164 statement that she was subjected to sexual act by this petitioner in her relatives house. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State further submits that the medical report discloses that hymen is ruptured and prayed to dismiss the petition. In reply to the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondentState, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the medical report discloses that findings are within normal limit which neither refute nor confirm the forceful sexual intercourse/assault.

¶35

Having heard the respective counsel appearing for

¶36

the parties and also on perusal of the material available on record it is clear that at the first instance, an allegation was made that this petitioner might have kidnapped the minor daughter of the complainant and the victim girl’s statement was record wherein she has stated that this petitioner was two years senior to her and she is in love with him from last one year and when the same comes to the knowledge of the family members, they instructed her to avoid him but the victim girl continued to

¶37

¶38

talk with the petitioner and there is no forcible sexual intercourse between them and no other statement is made. Having taken note of the peculiar circumstances that the petitioner is also a minor who is aged about 17 years 8 months at the time of the alleged incident and except an allegation that the hymen is ruptured, the medical opinion is that no material of subjecting her for forcible sexual intercourse. When such being the material on record, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of under Section 439 of Cr.P.C since the petitioner is in custody from the date of arrest and the investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been filed.

¶39

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶40

following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the

¶43

petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.10/2022 of Tumakuru Women Police Station, Tumakuru for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 363, 376of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, subject to the following conditions:

¶44

¶45

(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.

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

(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.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Awez @ Uvez v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Awez @ Uvez 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

Shri Madan Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

Madhu @ Slum @ Manoja Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt M Prabhavathi Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.Sunandamma Vs Smt.Lakshmamma @ Doddalakshmamma

Sri Dilip Kumar S., Vs State of Karnataka

Shaheen Taj @ Shaheen Taj Sultan Vs State by Govindapura Police