Allowed

Sri. Shashank v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2022CRL.P/9792/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted bail to a petitioner accused of sexual intercourse with a minor under the POCSO Act and IPC 1860, noting the parties were relatives intending to marry. Bail was granted on personal bond with conditions to marry the victim after she attains majority.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions including marrying the victim after she attains majority.

Sri. Shashank Vs State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | 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. 9792/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SHASHANK S/O SHIVARAJU AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT, NO.605/55, NEAR MH SCHOOL VIVEKANANDANAGARA RAMANAGARA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159

¶9

….PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SOMEGOWDA A.N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMANAGARA WOMEN PS REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING OPP. TO VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

¶13

S. RUDRESH S/O SHIVARUDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT, NO.24, SAS LAYOUT NEAR SH CONVENTION HALL, BIDADI TOWN, BIDADI HOBLI,

¶14

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 109

¶17

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. MANOJ .K, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.79/2022 OF RAMANAGARA WOMEN P.S., RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SEC.376(2)(n) OF IPC 1860 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN SPL.C.NO.113/2022.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner/Accused has filed this petition under

¶23

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for enlarging him on regular bail in Crime No.79/2022 registered by Ramanagara Women Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i) and under the provisions of Section

¶24

5(p)(k) and (j) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶25

The briefs factual matrix of the prosecution

¶26

are that the complainant is the father of the victim girl

¶27

¶28

aged 17 years and studying Diploma in Computer Science in the college of Government Women’s Polytechnic. It is also alleged that the petitioner is a relative of the complainant and the petitioner as well as the victim girl came in contact with each other in a family function and they started to share the likings to each other. Subsequently, on 28.04.2022, the petitioner secured the victim girl to his house on the ground that he is alone in the house and his parents are not in the house and when the victim went to the house of petitioner, they had physical contact with each other with a hope that they are going to marry in future. Subsequently, the victim complained stomach pain and she was subjected to medical examination and it is revealed that, she is pregnant. On enquiry, the victim narrated the incident and as such, the complaint came to be lodged.

¶29

¶30

On the basis of the complaint, the Investigating Officer registered the case in Crime No.79/2022, investigated the matter, apprehended the petitioner and remanded him to judicial custody. Therefore, the petitioner has approached the learned Sessions Judge with a petition seeking bail and that petition came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶31

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State as well as the learned counsel for Respondent No.2/complainant. Perused the records.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶33

contend that both petitioner and victim are relatives and they were in love with each other and they had an intention to marry each other. He would also contend that, both the petitioner and victim are students and immediately after victim attaining the age of majority,

¶34

¶35

they are planning to marry each other. Hence, he would seek for admitting the petitioner on bail.

¶36

Learned counsel for Respondent No.2/complainant would also submit same thing. Further, the father of victim is also present before the court and he submits that the matter is now came to the knowledge of his relatives and hence, he had no option except to get marry the victim with petitioner.

¶37

The learned HCGP would submit that, if the said submission of the father of the victim is going to be considered, then the some conditions regarding the marriage of petitioner/accused and victim has to be imposed, so that, such condition could compel them to marry each other and subsequently, further necessary steps can be taken, in this regard.

¶38

Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, there is no dispute of the fact that the

¶39

¶40

victim is a minor aged about 17 years. Further, the statement of the victim is available, which discloses that with a hope that the petitioner will marry her, she voluntarily developed physical relationship with him. However, though there was consent by the victim, since she is a minor, her consent in this regard to physical relationship becomes irrelevant. However, it is an undisputed fact that the victim is aged about 17 years and as such she is capable of knowing and understanding what is right and wrong. Even it is noticed that, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she has stated the same thing and admitted her relationship with the petitioner.

¶41

Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the learned counsel for Respondent No.2/complainant would submit that, there is a proposal that, immediately after the victim attaining

¶42

¶43

the age of majority, she would be get married to the petitioner.

¶44

As could be seen from the records, the investigation is completed and as such, the presence of the petitioner in this case is no more required by the Investigating Officer. Further, the 164 statement of the victim girl would also establish that, she had physical relationship with the petitioner, which is not in dispute. Hence, if the petitioner is released on bail, there would not be any occasion for tampering the prosecution witnesses. Now, it is also submitted by both parties that petitioner and victim are intending to marry each other. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances, and the rival contentions and also the submission of the learned HCGP, including proposal for marriage, I am of the considered opinion, that the petitioner can be admitted on bail subject to certain conditions. Hence, the petition

¶45

¶46

is required to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass

¶47

the following:-

¶48

ORDER

¶49

The petition is allowed . The petitioner/Accused No.1-Shashank is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No.79/2022 registered in Women Police Station at Ramanagara for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i) and under the provisions of Section 5(p) and (j) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, on his executing the personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned police station., subject following conditions:-

¶50

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

¶51

ii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the trial Court;

¶52

iii) The petitioner shall regularly appear before trial Court on all the dates of hearing, unless he is specifically exempted.

¶53

¶54

(iv) The petitioner shall marry victim immediately after she attaining age of majority, which shall be registered and the Certificate of Registration shall be produced before the trial court.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

KGR* CT:NR

Sri. Shashank v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Shashank 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

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

Mr Arun Kumar K v Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Jabi Ulla @ Shameer @ Imran Vs the State of Karnataka