Prasad S/O Irrappa Hamapannavar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2023CRL.P/101678/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court rejected an application for bail for an accused charged with sexual assault (POCSO) and kidnapping of a minor. The court held that the charge sheet made out a strong prima facie case and granted bail was inappropriate.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed for bail rejected.

Prasad S/O Irrappa Hamapannavar Vs the State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10120 CRL.P No. 101678 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101678 OF 2023 (439-)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

PRASAD @ SHIVAPRASAD S/O IRRAPPA HAMAPANNAVAR AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. BARBER R/O. 2ND CROSS, MARUTI NAGAR, BELAGAVI.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MURGOD P.S. NOW REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD

¶12

CHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANI Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANIDate: 2023.09.0815:00:19 +0530

¶13

SHAILA W/O MALLIKARJUNAYYA HIREMATH AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NEAR SHIVANAND MATH, INCHAL TQ. SAUNDATTI DIST. BELAGAVI-591112.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1,

¶16

SMT. JOSHNA P DHANAVE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10120 CRL.P No. 101678 of 2023

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED (MURGOD P.S. CR. NO. 339-2022) IN SPECIAL CASE NO. 53/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT-I BELAGAVI FOR THE OFFENCES U/SEC. 363, 376(2)(n), 376 (2)(o), 323, 109, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 4 AND 6 OF THE POCSO ACT 212.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.1 has filed this petition under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short “CR.P.C.”) to grant him bail in Special Case No.53/2023, on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Special Court – I, Belagavi, for the offences punishable under sections 363, 376(2)(n), 376 (2)(o), 323, 109, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in for “POCSO").

¶23

In support of his petition, petitioner has contended that he is innocent and law-abiding citizen. He

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10120 CRL.P No. 101678 of 2023

¶25

has not committed the alleged offences and that he is falsely implicated in the case. The allegations made against him are false, baseless, imaginary, created and concocted in order to make a case against him. When the alleged incident took place, the prosecutrix was aged about 17 years 5 months and it cannot be believed that she blindly followed the petitioner without any resistance. The concerned police in collusion with the persons inimical towards the petitioner have filed a charge sheet. There is in ordinate delay in filing the complaint. Already charge sheet is filed and therefore, the custodial presence of the petitioner is not required. Petitioner is in judicial custody since 31. 12. 2022. Petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed.

¶26

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State submitted that after due service of notice to the mother of the prosecutrix, Smt. Jyothsna.P. Dhanave, learned Counsel has appeared for respondent No.2-Shaila. They have resisted the bail petition contending that at the time of incident, the prosecutrix

¶27

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10120 CRL.P No. 101678 of 2023

¶28

was aged about 17 years 3 months. She was studying in second PUC Arts Section. Her friend-Shreya Shrishail Ganachari, introduced her to the petitioner. He started visiting the place of Prosecutrix. He used to follow her, watch her and harassed her. When his harassment became unbearable, prosecutrix along with her mother went to the Police Station and reported the matter. In

¶29

fact, police summoned the petitioner and warned him.

¶30

3.1 After one week i.e. on 28.9.2022, petitioner

¶31

went to Inchala village and though he knew that prosecutrix is a minor, with a promise to marry her, he enticed her away and took her on his motorbike to his house. She stayed in the house of the petitioner along with accused Nos.2 and 3 till 25.12.2022. During this period, petitioner sexually assaulted her continuously. Accused Nos.2 and 3 used to assault and abused her and ultimately on 25.12.2022, they threw her out of the house. Without any alternative, she went to her parents house, but they did not allow her to enter the house.

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10120 CRL.P No. 101678 of 2023

¶33

Therefore, she called 1098 helpline and with the help of Child Welfare Committee, Belagavi, she lodged the complaint.

¶34

3.2 Based on the complaint, the concerned police

¶35

have registered the case and taken up investigation. Petitioner was arrested. Both petitioner and prosecutrix are subjected to medical examination, which revealed that the prosecutrix is sexually assaulted. Accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the parents of the petitioner/accused No.1 have secured anticipatory bail. After completing detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed against the petitioner and his parents for the offences punishable under sections 363, 376 (2)(n), 376 (2)(o), 323, 109, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. Charge sheet makes out a prima facie case. Evidence has not yet commenced. There is a threat to the prosecutrix and other witnesses. If released on bail, there is every likelihood of prosecutrix and other material witnesses, not

¶36

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10120 CRL.P No. 101678 of 2023

¶37

supporting the prosecution case and pray to dismiss the petition.

¶38

Heard arguments of both sides and perused the

¶39

record.

¶40

Thus, it is the definite case of prosecution that

¶41

the date of birth of prosecutrix is 22.7.2005. Knowing that she is a minor, petitioner/accused No.1 started following her, teasing and harassing. In fact, once she along with her mother complained to the concerned police about the harassment meted out by the petitioner/accused No.1 and he was warned by the police. However, after one week, he enticed her away on his motorbike and took her to his house. Accused Nos.2 and 3, despite knowing that she is a minor, allowed Petitioner/accused No.1 keep the prosecutrix in their house for a period of three months. However, petitioner sexually assaulted her and during this period all the accused persons used to abuse her in filthy language and assault her. On 25.12.2022, the accused persons, including the petitioner/accused No.1 drove her

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10120 CRL.P No. 101678 of 2023

¶44

out of their house. When she went back to her parents house, her mother did not allow her to stay with her. Without any alternative, with the help of Child Welfare Committee, she lodged the complaint.

¶45

The medical report of the prosecutrix revealed that hyman absent and old tear is seen. It supports and corroborates the case the prosecution that during this period, when the prosecutrix stayed with the accused persons, she was sexually assaulted by the petitioner. Having regard to the fact that at the relevant point of time prosecutrix was a minor, her consent is immaterial. The charge sheet makes out a strong prima facie case against the petitioner/accused No.1. It is submitted by the learned counsel for respondent that the petitioner/accused No.1 is giving threat to the prosecutrix and in the circumstances, it may not be conducive to the prosecutrix to give evidence if the petitioner is granted bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10120 CRL.P No. 101678 of 2023

¶47

¶48

considered opinion that at this stage, he is not entitled for

¶49

bail and accordingly, the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶52

by petitioner/accused No.1 is rejected.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Prasad S/O Irrappa Hamapannavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasad S/O Irrappa Hamapannavar 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

Sri. Mahadev S/O. Basappa Savadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Janappa S/O Raju Koujalagi Alias Girennavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Karinagappa S/O Gundumunagu Sannirappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Yallappa Shrimant Kale Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Appasab S/O Balappa Sanadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Durgaraj S/O Kallappa Arasanal Vs the State of Karnataka