Dismissed

Sri Manjunath S/O Hulugappa Lamani v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2023CRL.P/101272/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a POCSO case. The court held that despite the charge sheet being filed, recording of evidence had not commenced, and there was a likelihood of witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is rejected. Petitioner/accused is not entitled for bail.

Sri Manjunath S/O Hulugappa Lamani Vs the… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10279 CRL.P No. 101272 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101272 OF 2023 (439-)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. MANJUNATH S/O. HULUGAPPA LAMANI AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: R/O: HULAGI VILLAGE, TQ: KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL, PIN-582114.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH PSI MUNIRABAD POLICE STATION, DIST: KOPPAL, PIN-582114.

¶12

CHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANI Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANIDate: 2023.09.14 12:43:00 +0530

¶13

TULASI W/O. BHAVANI SHANKAR AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: GUDI AREA, 4TH WARD, HULAGI VILLAGE, TQ: KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL, PIN-582114.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR RI, R2-SERVED)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON REGULAR BAIL IN CONNATION WITH CRIME NO. 306/2022 (SPL.S.C.POCSO 3/2023) FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES, U/SEC. 363, 343, 376, OF IPC R/W SEC. 6 OF PROTECTION OF CHILD FROM SEXUAL OFFENCE ACT 2012 REGISTERED BY THE MUNARABAD POLICE STATION DISTRICT KOPPAL PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JDUGE FTSC-1 KOPPAL FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISBALE.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10279 CRL.P No. 101272 of 2023

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner who is sole accused has filed this petition under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to grant him bail in Crime No.306/2022 (Spl. S.C. POCSO 03/2023) for the offence punishable under Section 363, 343 and 376 of IPC read with Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act”).

¶21

In support of his petition, the

¶22

petitioner/accused has contended that there is no nexus between him and the alleged incident. The statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., indicates that she has willfully joined the company of petitioner/accused and went to Hulagi Railway Station and from to Hospet and thereafter, they went to a small village and stayed in factory for some time and led life with petitioner/accused. Already investigation is completed and charge sheet is

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10279 CRL.P No. 101272 of 2023

¶24

filed. Consequently, the custody of petitioner/accused is no longer required. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the offence under Section 376 of IPC is not made out. The petitioner/accused is ready and willing to abide by any conditions imposed and prays to allow the petition.

¶25

Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted oral objections stating that the mother of the prosecutrix by name Smt.Tulasi D/o Bhavani shankar, has filed the complaint on 25.11.2022, stating that the prosecutrix is her elder daughter. Complainant is having two sons, aged about 12 and 3 years. The prosecutrix is studying in 9^th standard. On 25.11.2022 at about 9.00 a.m. as usual prosecutrix is left the house to go to school at Hasalingapura. She did not return home at 5.00 p.m. as usual and thinking that she may be with her friends complainant kept quiet. After 6.00 p.m. when she did not return, complainant went in search of her and when she enquired her teacher telephonically, she told the

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10279 CRL.P No. 101272 of 2023

¶28

complainant that the prosecutrix has not come to the School on that day. After searching her everywhere, she lodged a missing complaint. As on the day of complaint, prosecutrix was aged about 14 years 10 months.

¶29

3.1. Based on the complaint, case was registered in Crime No.306/2022 (SPl. S.C. POCSO No.03.2023) for the offence under Section 363 of IPC and investigation was taken up. During investigation, the petitioner/accused and prosecutrix were secured from Chikkuru of Arsikere and the interrogation of the accused and enquiry with the prosecutrix, it was revealed that about 3 years prior to the date of complaint, she came in contact with the petitioner/accused. On 11.10.2022, while she was speaking to the petitioner/accused at Hulagi Railway Station, her uncle Ramanjaneya saw her and informed her mother and she was advised by her mother.

¶30

3.2. On 24.11.2022 petitioner/accused told her that

¶31

they would run away from the house. Accordingly, on 25.11.2022, after telling her mother that she is going to

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10279 CRL.P No. 101272 of 2023

¶33

the school prosecutrix went to Hulagi Bus stand. From there along with the petitioner/accused, they went to Hospete and from Hospete in train they went to Chikuru of Arsikere. They stayed in a black papper factory. While staying in the room of the factory petitioner/accused had committed sexual intercourse with her against her consent. On 01.12.2022, Police apprehended and brought them back.

¶34

3.3. Both petitioner/accused and prosecutrix were subjected to medical examination. The medical report of the prosecutrix reveals that hymen is ruptured and possibility sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out. After conducting detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed against the petitioner/accused which makes out a strong prima facie case. Even now the prosecutrix is a minor. Recording of evidence is not yet commenced. At this stage, if the petitioner is granted bail, there is a likelihood of he threatening and tampering of witnesses cannot be ruled out and prays to reject the petition.

¶35

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10279 CRL.P No. 101272 of 2023

¶36

Heard arguments and perused the records.

¶37

From the material placed on record, it is evident

¶38

that as on the date of complaint, prosecutrix was aged about 14 years 10 months. She was studying in 9^th standard. On 25.11.2022, as usual she left the home to go to the school. However, she did not return in the evening. Her mother i.e. complainant called her teacher. Her teacher said that prosecutrix has not attended the school on that day. Thereafter, she filed a missing complaint.

¶39

During investigation, the investigating officer has arrested the petitioner and found the prosecutrix in his company. Both of them were subjected to medical examination, which reveals that prosecutrix is sexually assaulted by the petitioner/accused. After conducting detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed against the petitioner/accused, which makes out a strong prima facie case. Recording of evidence has not yet commenced. Having regard to the serious allegations made against the petitioner, it would not be in the interest of the

¶40

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10279 CRL.P No. 101272 of 2023

¶41

prosecution to grant him bail, in which event the possibility of petitioner/accused threatening or tampering with the witnesses cannot be ruled out.

¶42

For these reasons, this Court is of the

¶43

considered opinion that at this stage petitioner/accused is not entitled for bail. Accordingly, following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

Petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is rejected.

¶46

SD/JUDGE

¶47

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Sri Manjunath S/O Hulugappa Lamani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunath S/O Hulugappa Lamani v. the 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

Durgaraj S/O Kallappa Arasanal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Gopinath S/O Narasimha Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka

Aman Mohammed S/O Haneef Shaikh Vs the State of Karnataka by

Kumar S/O Malleshappa Basargi Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Kasappa Ramappa Karikolla Vs the State of Karnataka

K R Mahesh Wodeyar S/O Revanaiah Wodeyar, Vs Sree Amba Enterprises Represented by Its Manager