High Court of Karnataka, Criminal Bench rejected an application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving offences under Section 376 IPC and POCSO Act, holding it not a fit case to enlarge the accused.
Bail petition rejected. Petitioner at liberty to approach Court after examination of victim and doctor.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5829/2022
BETWEEN
NARASIMHA H S/O GANGANNA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS C/O GAYATHRI’S HOUSE R/AT NO.53 K K LINE AADINARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE GALLI GANDHI VATARA, COTTENPET BANGALORE CITY -560053 PERMANENT R/AT NO.6/137, KOGIRA VILLAGE RODDUM MANGALAM, PENUGONDA HOBLI ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT ANDRAPRADESH STATE -515 123
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MANJUNATH M R, ADVOCATE)
AND
2
BANGALORE – 560 063 (DELETED V/O DT.01.07.2022
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H S SHANKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGED THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.47/2022 OF YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376 OF IPC AND SECTION 12, 5(J)(II), 11(I), 5(L), 4(I), 6(I) OF POCSO ACT AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.47/2022 of Yelahanka Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 376 of IPC and Section 12, 5(j)(ii), 11(i), 5(l), 4(i), 6(i) of POCSO Act.
was staying with her parents i.e., CW12 and 13 within the jurisdiction of Yelahanka police station from 2018, CW7 and 8
3
are the husband and wife and they are also staying in the rented premises belonged to CW6 in the third house of first floor from 2017. The petitioner used to visit the house of CW7 since CW7 is the sister of this petitioner. When this petitioner was frequently visiting the house of CW7, having acquaintance with CW1 and promised her to marry her and subjected her for sexual act against her wish as a result, she became pregnant and gave a birth to a child but the petitioner has not married her thereby he cheated her. It is also the case of the prosecution that when the parents were not there in the house, CW1 gave a birth to a child and being afraid of the society, she kept the child in an open field near the Vijayajyothi school. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against this petitioner for the aforesaid offences.
4
sexual act two years ago and the complaint is given in the month of January 2022 and the counsel further submits that the victim herself went to the Yelahanka police station on 29.12.2021 making an allegation against her parents that they are making an arrangement for her marriage forcibly and when such being the case, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner and prayed to allow the petition.
the parties and also on perusal of the material available on record particularly in the complaint, the victim has stated that
5
from the last two years, she fell in love with the petitioner and he was working as a driver and he subjected her for sexual act when she went to the house of this petitioner and also she reiterates that as a result, she became pregnant and gave birth to a child and thereafter being afraid of the society, kept the said child in a vacant place hence, the petitioner committed an offence of cheating the victim by not marrying her and on the false promise of marriage, he subjected her for sexual act. The investigation material also discloses the said fact. The very contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the victim herself fell in love with the petitioner from last two years and the complaint also discloses the same. Having considered the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the 164 statement and apart from the medical evidence is also clear that hymen is not intact and the fact that the victim girl is a minor is not in dispute and the petitioner knowing fully well that she is a minor, allegedly subjected her to sexual act, hence, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in custody from 15.02.2022 is not a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail when an heinous offence of subjecting the minor girl for sexual act.
6
following:
ORDER
The bail petition is rejected. The petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court after examination of victim girl as well as the doctor.
Sd/JUDGE
SN
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is a fit case to be enlarged on bail despite allegations of subjecting a minor girl to sexual acts.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
NARASIMHA H S/O GANGANNA
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
MONISHA D/O VEERABHADRA
H.P. SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
