Allowed

Sri Jagadeesh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2022CRL.P/5548/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail petition. Relying on the negative FSL report regarding seminal stains and the victim's statement that sexual acts occurred after marriage during cohabitation, the court exercised its powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to release the accused on bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail in Crime No.36/2021 subject to personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties and specific conditions regarding appearance and non-removal from jurisdiction.

Sri Jagadeesh 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 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5548/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI JAGADEESH S/O MALLESHA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT CHATHOBANAHALLI VILLAGE, HOSANAGARA DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577514. … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI JAGADISH J.R, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE STATION DAVANAGERE TALUK REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING 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 CR.NO.36/2021 (S.C.NO.91/2021) OF WOMEN POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 506, 376, 366A, 363 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 6, 17 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTIONS 9, 10, 11 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE RESTRAINT 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 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking

¶18

regular bail of the petitioner/accused in respect of Crime No.36/2021 (S.C.No.91/2021) registered by Women Police Station, Davanagere District, for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 376, 366A and 363 of IPC, Sections 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of the Child Marriage Restraint Act.

¶19

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

¶20

This is a successive bail petition filed by the

¶21

petitioner.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the FSL report is received and nothing is found even suspecting the seminal stains. In terms of the FSL report, the observations and tests conducted for Skin tissues

¶23

¶24

are: The suspected scrapings were tested extracted in normal saline, mounted on glass slide and stained with haematoxyline and eosine observed under microscope. Seminal stains were not detected in any of the items.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the sexual act was done after the marriage. In her 164 statement also, it is very clear that after the marriage only she was subjected to sexual act and both of them lived together for a period of one month. Hence, he prays that this petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶26

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that no doubt, the test report is negative with regard to seminal stains are concerned, but the material discloses that she was subjected to sexual act. Hence, this Court earlier rejected the bail petition.

¶27

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly, the test report and seminal stains are not detected on the items which

¶28

¶29

have been sent to the FSL. Apart from that, the victim statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., is very clear that after the marriage only she was subjected to sexual act. Both of them lived together for a period of one month. Before the Doctor also, she says after the marriage only she was subjected to sexual act. When such being the material on record, 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:-

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the

¶32

petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in Crime No.36/2021 (S.C.No.91/2021) registered by Women Police Station, Davanagere District, for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 376, 366A and 363 of IPC, Sections 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, subject to the following conditions:-

¶33

(i) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs

¶34

¶35

only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

(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.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

cp*

Sri Jagadeesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jagadeesh 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

Anukumar J v Vs State of Karnataka

V. Vishnu Devan @ Vishnu @ Pochi Vs State of Karnataka by SHO

Mr. Ramashetty Pavan Kumar @ Pavan @ Pruthvi Vs the State of Karnataka

Kasappa @ Kashiray S/O Satyappa Pujari Vs the State of Karnataka

Prashantha. S. N. Vs State of Karnataka

Nagarjuna G S Vs the State of Karnataka