Allowed

Maruthi M R @ Druva v. State of Karnataka by Davangere

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2022CRL.P/8881/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail plea filed under Section 439 CrPC. Noting the victim's age was nearly 18 and the petitioner had been in custody for over six months with the investigation complete, the Court found no impediment for bail subject to conditions. It highlighted inconsistencies in the victim's statements but ruled that appearance is no longer required for investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail with personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties subject to conditions including not tampering with witnesses, committing no similar offences, and appearing in court.

Maruthi M R @ Druva Vs State of Karnataka by… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8881 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MARUTHI M.R @ DRUVA S/O RAMESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/O MARIKUNTE VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577553.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. CHAKRAVARTHY T.S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DAVANGERE WOMAN POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577553 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

PADMA

¶14

W/O LATE GANGADHARA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O. NITTUVALLI, NEAR KTJ NAGAR POLICE STATION, DAVANGERE-577002.

¶15

… RESPONDENTS

¶16

¶17

(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶18

This Criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.36/2022 of Davanagere Women Police Station, Davanagere for the offence punishable under Sections 363,376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act pending on the file of 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and JMFC Court, Davanagere District and etc.,

¶19

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:-

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of CPC for enlarging him on bail in Crime No.36/2022 registered in Davangere Woman Police Station pending on the file of 2^nd Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC Court, Davangere for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act.

¶22

The complainant, who is the mother of the victim,

¶23

has set the law in motion on 23.02.2022 at 10.45 a.m alleging that on 22.02.2022 morning her daughter/victim had gone to polytechnic college and she did not return in the evening. It is also alleged that the petitioner used to

¶24

¶25

talk with the victim all along and they used to object for the same. She has also asserted that her daughter is missing and set the law in motion by lodging a complaint. The complaint was initially registered for the offence under Section 363 of IPC. Subsequently, the petitioner was apprehended and then the Investigating Officer has subjected the victim as well as the petitioner to medical examination. Later on, after completing the investigation, he has filed charge sheet under Sections 363, 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶26

The petitioner has moved a regular bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge by the order dated 18.08.2022 in SC No.73/2022 has rejected the bail petition. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶27

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP. Perused the records.

¶28

¶29

Though the minor guardian was served, she has

¶30

remained unrepresented.

¶31

The learned counsel for petitioner would contend that as on the date of alleged offence, the victim was aged about 17 years 11 months and 6 days old and even if the case of the prosecution is accepted as it is, it is only a consensual sex. He would also contend that the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been laid down and presence of petitioner is no more required by the investigating agency. He would also assert that on perusal of records, it is evident that victim has given two 164 statements before the learned Magistrate which are contradictory to each other. Hence, he would contend that the prosecution story cannot be accepted and undertakes to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court for enlarging him on bail.

¶32

Per-contra learned HCGP would contend that the medical records disclose that the victim was minor and the petitioner had sexual affair with victim having knowledge

¶33

¶34

that she is minor and hence, there is material evidence as against the present petitioner and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶35

Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident from the records that the victim is on the verge of attaining the age of majority. The allegations were that on 22.02.2022 she went along with petitioner and they had physical relationship. Subsequently, on 23.02.2022, she returned and meanwhile a missing complaint was also filed and the victim was subjected to a medical examination. The medical report discloses that there were no injuries on her body but, it records that the hymen was not intact.

¶36

Interestingly, the petitioner has given two statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. One on 25.02.2022 and another on 03.03.2022 before the same Magistrate. The first statement of the victim discloses that

¶37

she had been to a place of her friend Kavya and stayed there and she had intimated this matter to her mother but

¶38

¶39

in between, her mother has filed a missing complaint. On 03.03.2022, an inconsistent 164 statement was given wherein she asserted that she was in love with the present petitioner since 3 to 4 years and on February 23^rd the petitioner secured her by sending a message on her mobile to the bus stand and from there they went to Hirekabbigere village, Chitradurga Taluk where he was staying and there, they had physical relationship. Even in the subsequent statement, there is no allegation of compulsion. However, it is evident that victim was minor and her consent becomes irrelevant.

¶40

However, the victim is aged about 17 years and 11 months and was capable of understanding the things. Further, while recording the statement there are no reasons given for giving an inconsistent version on the earlier occasion. Hence, it is evident that the prosecution is full of surmises and the statement of the victim itself is inconsistent. The petitioner is in custody for nearly more than 6 months and the investigation is completed and the

¶41

¶42

charge sheet has been laid down. His presence is no more

¶43

required by the investigating agency.

¶44

Under these circumstances, I do not find any

¶45

impediment for admitting the petitioner/accused on regular bail. The other apprehensions raised by the Investigating Officer can be meted by imposing certain conditions.

¶46

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The petition is allowed .

¶49

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.36/2022 in Davangere Woman Police Station, Davangere, 2nd Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.DN) and JMFC Court, Davangere, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees one Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court; subject to following conditions:-

¶50

i) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

¶51

¶52

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offences;

¶53

iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the Trial Court;

¶54

iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Court, on all the dates of hearing, unless they were exempted by a specific order.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Maruthi M R @ Druva v. State of Karnataka by Davangere

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruthi M R @ Druva v. State of Karnataka by Davangere

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

Shek Ahammed Vs State by Doddapete Police Station

Sri Raviraj Shetty R Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Pramod M Vs State by Alanahalli Police Station Mysore

Sri. Shashank Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Arun Kumar K v Vs State of Karnataka