Allowed

Ashis v. State by Channapatna Town P.S.

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2022CRL.P/87/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner sought bail in a case involving trafficking of minor children. The Court granted bail subject to standard conditions including the execution of a bond, surrender, and non-interference with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon execution of a bond for Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties and compliance with investigation conditions including surrender and attendance.

Ashis Vs State by Channapatna Town P.S. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H P SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 87/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ASHIS S/O DRAIVAR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS KOTE MARAMMA TEMPLE J.C.ROAD, KOTE CHANNAPATNA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562159 AND ALSO, PERMANENT ADDRESS MISHRAPUR, DUBEPUR VILLAGE UPRAHARA POST, ALLAHABAD UTTAR PRADESH - 212305 .. PETITIONER (By Sri.: GANESHA G, ADV.)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE BY CHANNAPATNA TOWN P.S. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE 560 001. ... RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HCGP)

¶12

¶13

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.71/2021 OF CHANNAPATNA TOWN P.S., RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 370 IPC AND SECTION 79 OF JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT 2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.71/2021 registered by the Channapatna Town Police Station, Ramanagara, for the offences punishable under Section 370 of IPC and Section 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act, 2015.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶18

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.

¶19

The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner employed minor children in his business and

¶20

¶21

thereby he has indulged in trafficking of minor children. Based on the complaint, police have registered a case and the matter is under investigation.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this petitioner is aged about 21 years and he has been falsely implicated by invoking Section 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act, 2015. The petitioner and the minor children who are employed are all his relatives. The petitioner and the minor children are all from Uttar Pradesh and the offences committed are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The maximum punishment that may be imposed is imprisonment for a period of 5 years. Further, the petitioner is ready to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

¶23

On the contrary, the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent - State would submit that the victims who have been rescued are aged about 15 years 7 months and 17 years and they were employed

¶24

¶25

in the course of his business. Section 370 of IPC has been indulged for trafficking of minor children.

¶26

6. Having heard the respective counsels and

¶27

also on perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that the specific allegation is made with regard to trafficking of minor children and also employing them for his business. Having taken note of the fact that the petitioner is also from Uttar Pradesh and the very contention of the petitioner that the children who have been rescued are all relatives of the petitioner and also having taken note of the allegations made in the complaint and also the offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, I'am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretion and grant bail subject to certain conditions.

¶28

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his

¶31

¶32

arrest in connection with Crime No.71 of Channapatna Police Station, Ramangara, for the offences punishable under Sections 370 of IPC and Section 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act, 2015, subject to the following conditions:-

¶33

(i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.

¶34

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

¶35

(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.

¶36

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till

¶37

¶38

the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.

¶39

(v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Rsk/

Ashis v. State by Channapatna Town P.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashis v. State by Channapatna Town P.S.

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. Mahesh M S Vs the State of Karnataka S H O

Rahul Reddy @ Chilla Rahul Reddy Vs State of Karnataka by

Sathish @ Sathya @ Kaduppa Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Hussain Vs State by Madivala P.S.

Shankara Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ramanji Vs State of Karnataka