Allowed

John Phillip v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Aug 2023CRL.A/1333/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal against the rejection of an anticipatory bail petition. The court quashed the lower court order and granted bail to the appellant, finding that the specific aggravated circumstances of the SC/ST Act were not attracted and considering the marital relationship.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed, the impugned order dated 10.07.2023 in Crl.Misc. No.1296/2023 was set aside, and the accused was ordered to be released on bail subject to a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/ with

John Phillip Vs State of Karnataka — Child Custody and Guardianship | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:28069 CRL.A No. 1333 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1333 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

JOHN PHILLIP, C/O. LATE BENNY, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O 104, RAJANNA BUILDING, HESARAGHATTA ROAD, NMS LAYOUT, DWARAKA NAGAR TOWN, CHIKKABANAVARA, BENGALURU-560 090.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. UDHAYA KUMAR G, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

SMT. GANGAMMA .E, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, W/O. JOHN PHILLIP, D/O RUKKAVVA, R/O ACHUTHNAGAR, SOLADEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE CITY, KARNATAKA-560 090. …RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. RENUKARADHYA R.D, HCGP FOR R1; R2- PRESENT PHYSICALLY)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:28069 CRL.A No. 1333 of 2023

¶18

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL. DLISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I AT BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN CRIMINAL MISC. 1296/2023 DATED 10.07.2023 AND ETC.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is filed by the sole accused praying to set-aside the order dated 10.07.2023 passed in Crl.Misc. No.1296/2023 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, where under the petition filed by the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C in respect of Crime No.192/2023 of Soladevanahalli Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(V) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Sections 4 and 6 of Prohibition of Child from Sexual Offences Act, came to be rejected.

¶22

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:28069 CRL.A No. 1333 of 2023

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

¶24

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

¶25

The respondent No.2 appeared in person physically before the Court and she submits that, she has no objection for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant. She further submits that appellant is her husband and she is having 1½ months male child and it is only the appellant, who is taking care of herself and her child.

¶26

It is the case of the prosecution that, respondent No.2 has filed a complaint, which came be registered in Crime No.192/2023 of Soladevanahalli Police Station for the aforesaid offences. In the said complaint respondent No.2 has stated that, she is aged 18 years, residing along with her husband Sri John Philip. She had a love affair with her husband and both married on 04.03.2022 and after marriage her husband had sexual intercourse with her and as a result, she became pregnant during the month of September 2022 and gave birth to a

¶27

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:28069 CRL.A No. 1333 of 2023

¶28

male child on 19.06.2023. It is further stated that, at the time of marriage and when she conceived, she was not completed 18 years of age. The appellant who has been arrayed as accused in the FIR apprehending his arrest has filed a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order which is challenging in this appeal.

¶29

The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that, the victim is not having parents and so also the appellant/accused is also not having parents, the appellant is taking care of victim, her child and younger sister of the victim. He further submits that, if the appellant is arrested, then it will affect the life and livelihood of the victim and her child. The appellant is ready to co-operate with the Police in the investigation. Without considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has passed impugned order which requires interference by this Court. With this he prayed to allow the appeal.

¶30

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:28069 CRL.A No. 1333 of 2023

¶31

Per contra , learned High Court Government

¶32

Pleader would contend that, the date of birth of the victim girl as per her school records is 13.01.2004, her marriage with the appellant has taken place on 04.03.2022 when she was minor and she became pregnant due to the act of this appellant/accused having sexual intercourse with her during her minority and she gave birth to a male child on 19.06.2023. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 20 years. The investigation is still in progress. If the appellant/accused is granted an anticipatory bail, he will threaten the complainant, hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses. Considering all these aspects, the Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the anticipatory bail petition which does not falls for an interference by this Court. With this he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶33

The date of birth of victim/complainant (respondent No.2) as per her Aadhar card is 01.12.2004.

¶34

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:28069 CRL.A No. 1333 of 2023

¶35

The marriage of the victim girl with the appellant/accused has taken place on 04.03.2022 and thereafter they had a physical contact and as a result, the victim girl became pregnant and gave birth to a male child on 19.06.2023. The marriage and physical contact between appellant/accused and victim girl has taken place during the minority of the victim girl. In the complaint itself, the victim girl has stated that, there was a love affair between herself and the appellant/accused and they both married with a mutual consent. There is no allegation of forcible sexual intercourse by the appellant/accused on the victim girl. The victim girl who appeared before this Court has submitted that she is now taken care of by the appellant/accused and the appellant/accused is also taking care of her 1½ months male child and her younger sister. The victim girl is of the age of understanding the consequence of her acts, the appellant/accused has undertaken to co-operate with the Investigation Officer in the investigation. Without considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the petition

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:28069 CRL.A No. 1333 of 2023

¶38

seeking anticipatory bail by the impugned order which calls for an interference by this Court.

¶39

There is no allegation of commission of any

¶40

offences by the appellant/accused on the victim girl punishable under Indian Penal Code and therefore the offence under Section 3(2)(V) is not attracted. As there is no prima facie case against the appellant/accused under the provisions of 3(2)(V) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, the bar contained under Section 18 and 18A of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, is not attracted.

¶41

In the result the following:-

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The appeal is allowed. The order dated 10.07.2023 passed in Crl.Misc. No.1296/2023 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Bengaluru Rural Court, Bengaluru, is set-aside. Crl.Misc. No.1296/2023 stands allowed. The appellant/accused is ordered to be

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:28069 CRL.A No. 1333 of 2023

¶46

released on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.192/2023 of Soladevanahalli Police Station, subject to the following conditions:-

¶47

i. The appellant/accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/with one surety for likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer.

¶48

ii. The appellant/accused shall voluntarily appear before the Investigation Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of

¶49

certified copy of this order and execute bail bond and furnish surety.

¶50

iii. The appellant/accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so

¶51

as to dissuade him from disclosing such

¶52

NC: 2023:KHC:28069 CRL.A No. 1333 of 2023

¶53

¶54

facts to the Court or to any Police Officer

¶55

or tamper with the evidence.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

John Phillip v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John Phillip 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

Rangappa @ Rangaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Raju B N Vs State by Bagepalli P S

Sri a Alam Pasha Vs Sri R Roshan Baig

Smt. Jayamma W/O Laxmegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Gurumurthy Vs the State by Govindarajanagar P.S.

Yeriswamy S/O Late Veerabhadrappa Vs State of Karnataka