Dismissed

Manu J S @ Manu v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Apr 2022CRL.A/855/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed an appeal and refused bail to an appellant charged with kidnapping, penetrative sexual assault, and atrocities under IPC, POCSO, and SC/ST (POA) Acts, finding no illegality in the trial court's rejection.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; appeal dismissed; liberty to approach Sessions Court for bail on changed circumstances.

Manu J S @ Manu Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.855 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

MANU J S @ MANU, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

¶9

S/O SIDDAIAH,

¶10

R/O JODIKALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKA NAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU,

¶11

KARNATAKA – 572214. … APPELLANT

¶12

[BY SRI.S.T.BIKKANNAVAR, ADVOCATE]

¶13

AND

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TIPTUR SUB-DIVISION, TUMKURU, (REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) – 572201.

¶15

KUM.DIVYA, D/O MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, JODIKALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKA NAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU – 572214 REPRESENTED BY MAMATHA W/O MANJUNATH, JODIKALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,

¶16

¶17

CHIKKA NAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU – 572214. … RESPONDENTS

¶18

[BY SRI R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1, R2 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

----

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-B REFUSING BAIL DATED 27.05.2021 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.539/2021 BY LEARNED ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (FTSC-1) TUMKURUR FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 323,354A,363,376(3),504,506 OF IPC, SEC.6 AND 8 OF POCSO ACT AND UNDER SEC.3(1)(W)(i)(ii),3(2)(va) OF ATROCITY ACT, REGISTERED IN CR.NO.4/2021 BY CHIKKA NAYAKANAHALLI POLICE, TUMKURU DISTRICT, PENDING TRIAL ON THE FILE OF ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (FTSC-1) TUMKURU IN SPL.C.NO.113/2021, AND KINDLY RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL.

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is preferred by the sole accused praying to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, rejecting his application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., and consequently to enlarge him on bail.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for appellant, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondentState and perused the material on record.

¶25

¶26

3. Respondent No.2/defacto complainant has

¶27

been served but there is no representation.

¶28

The submission of the learned counsel for appellant is that the accused is in judicial custody from 13.01.2021 i.e., for over one year two months. He is not required for any further investigation, since the charge sheet is already filed. He submits that further detention of the appellant will lead to pre-trial conviction. It is his further submission that the victim’s evidence is already recorded that she has resiled from her earlier statement given before the police etc. He therefore, seeks to set aside the impugned order and enlarge the appellant on bail.

¶29

Learned High Court Government Pleader has vehemently opposed grant of bail to the appellant and sought to reject the appeal.

¶30

6. The appellant is facing trial in Special Case

¶31

No.113/2021 on the file of the Court of Additional District

¶32

¶33

and Sessions Judge (FTC-I), Tumkuru for offences punishable under Sections 323, 354(A), 363, 376(3), 504 and 506 of IPC and Sections 6 and 8 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 05.01.2021 at about 5.30 a.m. It is alleged that the accused kidnapped the minor victim aged about 16 years and took her to a secluded place, assaulted and abused her and committed penetrative sexual assault by threatening her etc.

¶34

The learned Sessions Judge has observed that medical report and wound certificate reflected the injuries on the body of the victim girl, which clearly indicate that there is sexual violation on the victim girl. In her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., the victim has clearly revealed about the forceful abduction and aggravated penetrative sexual assault. From the charge sheet material it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case made out against the

¶35

¶36

appellant. Therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court in rejecting the prayer for bail.

¶37

It is the submission of the learned counsel for

¶38

the appellant that the victim’s evidence is already recorded and she has resiled from her earlier statement. However, the deposition of the victim is not produced

¶39

before the Court and on that ground, the accused has not sought bail before the trial Court. In that view of the matter liberty is reserved to the appellant to approach the Sessions Court by filing a fresh petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., under changed circumstances. If any such application is filed the same shall be considered and disposed of by the trial Court in accordance with law.

¶40

With the above observation, appeal is dismissed.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

HB/-

Manu J S @ Manu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manu J S @ Manu 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

Mr Prashanth S D Vs State of Karnataka

S. Kumar S/O Srikantaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Showkath Ali Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs T M Sunitha Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Krishna C Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Thippeshi @ Thippeswamy Vs State of Karnataka by