Allowed

Raju @ Kerala v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC5 Apr 2023CRL.P/521/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving charges of rape, kidnapping, and offenses under POCSO. The court observed that the victim (CW-1) was treated as a hostile witness and did not provide evidence to establish the prosecution's case, deeming continued custody unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by executing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses and regular court attendance.

Raju @ Kerala Vs State of Karnataka by — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 521 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.521 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAJU @ KERALA S/O. ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT CHIKKANAGAVALLI VILLAGE MANDIKAL HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI BASAVARAJU T.A., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PERESANDRA POLICE STATION CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

NAGARAJAPPA S/O. NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT CHADHARLAHALLI VILLAGE SOMENAHALLI HOBLI GUDIBANDE TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 209.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP FOR R.1;

¶18

(B. CHANDRAMOULI, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 IS ABSENT)

¶19

¶20

CRL.P No. 521 of 2023

¶21

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.439 IF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.24/2022 OF PERESANDRA POLICE STATION FOR AN OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 366, 376(2)(n) OF IPC AND SECTION 5(j)(ii), 5(L), 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTION 9 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT 2006, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACT SPECIAL COURT-1 (POCSO) AS CHIKKABALLAPUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT IN SPL.S.C. NO.42/2022, ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard Sri. Basavaraju T.A, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vinayaka V.S., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 -State.

¶25

Present petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶26

“WHEREFORE, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble court be pleased to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.24/2022 of Peresandra Police Station for an offence under Section 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(j)(ii), 5(L), 6 of POCSO Act and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child marriage Act - 2006, which is pending on the file of Hon'ble Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court-I

¶27

¶28

CRL.P No. 521 of 2023

¶29

(POCSO) at Chikkaballapur, Chikkaballapur District in Spl.S.C.No.42/2022, on such terms and conditions, in the ends of justice."

¶30

The petitioner is charge sheeted for offence punishable under Section 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(j)(ii), 5(L), 6 of POCSO Act and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

¶31

The accused is in custody and attempt made by him to obtain an order of grant of bail was turned down by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc. No.774/2022 dated 28.112022. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim girl is examined before court in Cr.No.24/2022 as CW-1 and in her examination-in-chief, she has not supported the case of the prosecution to any extent except stating about her date of birth. She has also deposed that when her examination has taken place before jurisdictional Magistrate, she has not deposed anything about the forcible sexual assault alleged to have been made by the petitioner against her.

¶33

¶34

CRL.P No. 521 of 2023

¶35

The victim girl has been treated as hostile witness and cross-examined by the prosecution. Despite such detailed cross examination, no useful material is elicited in such crossexamination, which would establish the case of prosecution to any extent.

¶36

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶37

In the light of the rival contentions, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously.

¶38

Taking note of the fact that the victim girl has not deposed anything to attract the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC or under the provisions of POCSO Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the accused/petitioner in judicial custody is no longer warranted.

¶39

Accordingly, this Court passes the following:

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

i. The Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶42

ii. Petitioner be directed to be enlarged on bail by executing a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the

¶43

¶44

CRL.P No. 521 of 2023

¶45

likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶46

iii. Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶47

iv. Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.

¶48

v. Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of 'Chikkaballapura District' without prior permission.

¶49

If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of this bail order.

¶50

Ordered accordingly.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Raju @ Kerala v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju @ Kerala v. State of Karnataka by

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

Prem Bahadur Khadka Vs State of Karnataka

Mallikarjunachari Vs the State of Karnataka

Ananda Bardan Vs State by Cottonpet Police Station

Sri Kiran Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ashokkumar Nayak @ Ganesha Vs State by Station House Officer Huliyar Police Station

Sannamma Vs State of Karnataka