Allowed

Mariyappa S/O Hucchappa Mudlapur v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2023CRL.P/101637/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 CrPC for offences under IPC 376(3) and POCSO Act 2012, the Single Judge allowed the application. The court granted bail relying on the fact that paternity of the child born to the minor victim was not determined and hospital records listed a different name.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety of the likesum subject to standard conditions.

Mariyappa S/O Hucchappa Mudlapur Vs the… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12499 CRL.P No. 101637 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101637 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MARIYAPPA S/O HUCCHAPPA MUDLAPUR AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: LAKAMAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: KUKNOOR, DIST: KOPPAL-583238.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SABEEL AHAMED, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY KUKNOOR POLICE STATION, KOPPAL-583237, NOW REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATA, DHARWAD-580008.

¶14

Digitally
signed by
V N
V N BADIGER
BADIGER Date:
2023.10.27
10:31:55
+0530

¶15

SMT. RENUVVA W/O BASAVARAJ DHARANI AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: JANTALI SHIRUR VILLAGE, TQ: MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG-582113.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. VINAYAK S KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME NO. 31/2023 OF KUKNOOR POLICE STATION, REGISTERED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 376(3) OF IPC AND SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT-2012, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS, JUDGE FTSC-1, KOPPAL IN SPL.SC.POCSO NO. 24/2023.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12499 CRL.P No. 101637 of 2023

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard Shri Sabeel Ahamed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶24

2. Brief facts of the case:-

¶25

Smt. Renavva Dharani, has lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police stating that her daughter was staying at her parents house. Her parents house was situated at Lakmapur village. The complainant’s daughter was studying in 10^th standard and she was aged about 16 years. It is further stated in the complaint that on 06.03.2022, when her daughter was sleeping along with her grand parents, the petitioner herein stated to have committed sexual intercourse. Consequently, she became pregnant. The said fact came to know to the complainant on 14.03.2023, when the victim has developed stomach ache. It is further stated that when the victim was taken to the hospital for check up, on the same day, victim gave birth to a female child. When it was enquired, the victim disclosed the name of the petitioner herein and based on the complaint of the complainant, a case came to be registered

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12499 CRL.P No. 101637 of 2023

¶27

against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 376(3) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

¶28

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is innocent of the alleged offences and he is a permanent resident of Lakmapur village and is having a deep root in the society and he will abide the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail.

¶29

It is further submitted that there is inconsistency in respect of the allegations made against the petitioner. In the hospital record, the husband of the victim has been shown as Sharanu Dharani. However, in the complaint, the name of the present petitioner is shown as accused. The investigating officer has not got done the DNA test to determine the paternity of the child. In the absence of the determination of paternity of the child, mere making allegations against the petitioner would not sufficient to invoke the provisions stated supra. Hence, the petitioner is seeking bail for the above offences. Making such submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12499 CRL.P No. 101637 of 2023

¶31

Per contra, Shri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, the learned HCGP vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the victim has consistently stated about the involvement of the petitioner and also stated that she became pregnant because of the petitioner. The statement of the victim cannot be brushed aside and moreover, she was minor as on the date of the alleged incident. Therefore, the jurisdictional police have registered a case against the petitioner. The alleged offences are heinous in nature and it is a scar to the victim. The entire family has to suffer because of the act of the petitioner and the child also to be suffered at the instance of the petitioner. Since, the allege offence is heinous in nature, the petitioner would not deserve for bail. Making such submission, the learned HCGP prays to dismiss petition.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is relevant to take note of the facts in brief. As per the averments of the complaint, the victim was studying in 10^th standard as on the date of the alleged incident and she has not disclosed the said incident to anybody even to her parents till she gets stomach pain. When she sustained stomach pain, the

¶33

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12499 CRL.P No. 101637 of 2023

¶34

said fact made known to the parents of the victim. Even in the hospital record, the petitioner name has not mentioned.

¶35

On careful perusal of the hospital records, the hospital authority clearly mentioned the name of the husband of the victim as Sharanu Dharani. However, the present petitioner has been arrayed as accused on the basis of the complaint of the victim’s mother. Even though the charge sheet is filed, the paternity of the child has not been determined. Therefore, without touching the merit of the case, it is appropriate to grant bail.

¶36

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petition is allowed.

¶39

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.31/2023 of Kuknoor Police Station on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶40

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12499 CRL.P No. 101637 of 2023

¶41

a) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶42

b) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail.

¶43

In case, if the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

VMB,RKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Mariyappa S/O Hucchappa Mudlapur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariyappa S/O Hucchappa Mudlapur 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

Shri.Amit Iranna Shettasadavarti Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddanath S/O Tammanna Padagannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Rudresh Mahadevappa Sarvi Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddappa S/O. Chandappa Magadi Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Manjunath S/O Devappa Maygadaller (Chinchali) Vs the State of Karnataka

Annapurna W/O Rangapppa Billyar Vs the State of Karnataka