Allowed

Shri Huvani Alias Hari Parashram Margale, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2024CRL.P/101586/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail petition under Section 439 CrPC for an offence of rape under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act arising from an alleged relationship between the petitioner and a college student. The victim's statement before the Magistrate showed willingness to marry him. Granting bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions: no tampering with witnesses, not leaving court jurisdiction until disposal, attendance at all hearings.

Shri Huvani Alias Hari Parashram Margale, Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8977 CRL.P No. 101586 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101586 OF 2024 (439-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. HUVANI ALIAS HARI PARASHRAM MARGALE, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: AT SHIVOLI, P. CHAPGAON-593001, TAL. KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH NANDGAD POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI, R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶14

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI

¶15

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

SRI. BABU GAVADE, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HATTARWAD VILLAGE, TQ. KHANAPUR-593002, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶17

(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.25/2024 OF NANDAGAD P.S. FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 376 OF IPC AND SECTION 4 OF POCSO ACT, 2012, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1, BELAGAVI, DIST.BELAGAVI.

¶20

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

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8977 CRL.P No. 101586 of 2024

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Heard Sri Sadiq N. Goodwala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Kirtilata R.Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking regular bail in Crime No.25/2024 of respondent P.S. for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.

¶25

It is the case of the complainant that she was studying in II PUC at CDMS PU College, Nandgad. She had a friend namely, Prajakta. She had been to her house on account of Raksha Bandhan festival one year ago, as on the date of filing of the complaint. There, she met the petitioner. Thereafter, they started loving each other and she was taken to different temples and also to Goa and both were loving each other for considerable length of time. However, in the year 2023, in the month of August, she was asked to go to Machche near Belgaum and she went there. She was taken to one rented house by the

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8977 CRL.P No. 101586 of 2024

¶27

petitioner, and there he said to have committed the sexual assault. Thereafter, on 18.12.2023, when both the victim and the petitioner were roaming on the road of said Machche village, her relatives have seen that she was roaming with the petitioner and the same has been informed to their parents. The parents of the victim had lodged a complaint on 19.12.2023. They were secured and produced before the police. The police have advised them and kept her at Women Rehabilitation Center at Belgaum. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner. Based on the complaint, she was taken before the Magistrate to record her statement. Her statement was recorded. After completing the investigation, charge sheet is filed by the jurisdictional police.

¶28

It is the submission of the learned counsel for

¶29

the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the actual age of the victim and both were loving each other and also decided to marry each other. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, school record is

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8977 CRL.P No. 101586 of 2024

¶31

not a conclusive proof to determine the age of the victim. The petitioner was studying in II PUC. No birth certificate is produced to disclose her date of birth. Therefore, the POCSO provisions would not be attracted against the petitioner.

¶32

It is further submitted that the victim has filed a false complaint against the petitioner about the commission of rape. Therefore, bail application of the petitioner may be considered and he may be enlarged on bail.

¶33

It is further submitted that the petitioner is aged about 24 years working at private sector, resident of Shivoli, Khanapur Taluk and he is the earning member of the family and he is in judicial custody since 14.01.2024. He will abide the conditions imposed by this Court, in the event of his release on bail. Making such submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶34

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposed the bail petition and

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8977 CRL.P No. 101586 of 2024

¶36

submitted that the petitioner has committed heinous offence against the minor. It is further submitted that children need to be regulated as they are the susceptible to the society at large. It is the duty of the Courts to protect their life and liberty of the children. They have been subjected to sexual exploitation on every moment in the society. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner needs to be rejected in order to send a message to the society at large that the Courts are imposing stringent restrictions to avoid such exploitation.

¶37

It is further submitted that the petitioner herein induced the minor girl, took her to the different parts of the locality and committed sexual assault. It has been proved through the medical evidence. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for bail. Making such submission, the learned HCGP prays to dismiss the petition.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge sheet, it is essential at this moment to consider the statement of the victim made before the Magistrate. The

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8977 CRL.P No. 101586 of 2024

¶40

victim has narrated the entire history how she was loving the petitioner and how both were decided to marry each other. However, at the end of her statement, she expressed her willingness to marry with the petitioner. It is again noticed in her statement that earlier complaint was lodged before the police by the father of the victim

¶41

and there, both have made a statement that after completion of 18 years, the marriage of both of them would be performed.

¶42

Having considered the nature and

¶43

circumstances of the case, without adverting to the merit of the case, it is appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner by imposing conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The petition is allowed.

¶46

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 25/2024 respondent Police Station, on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8977 CRL.P No. 101586 of 2024

¶48

(Rupees One lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to

¶49

the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶50

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

¶51

b) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court till disposal of the case.

¶52

c) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial

¶53

Court on all dates of hearing without fail.

¶54

In case, if the petitioner violates any of the bail

¶55

conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

VMB CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Shri Huvani Alias Hari Parashram Margale, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Huvani Alias Hari Parashram Margale, 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

Mr. Abdus Samad Ziyai S/O Noor Mohammed Vs the State of Karnataka

Parashuram Nagappa Kale Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Suresh Chanagond Vs the State of Karnataka by

Anand S/O Dhanapal Patayit Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravi Ravindra S/O Bhimappa Patayit Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Ramesh S/O Muddu Ramayya Vs State of Karnataka