Allowed

Mr Ramesh S/O Muddu Ramayya v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2024CRL.P/101650/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail petition by the accused charged under Sections 376(1), 448 IPC and Sections 4, 8 POCSO Act for alleged sexual assault on a 17-year-old. Noting the five-month delay in complaint and medical report showing no recent assault, the court granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety, subject to conditions of not tampering with witnesses and appearing before the Trial Court.

Mr Ramesh S/O Muddu Ramayya Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8980 CRL.P No. 101650 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101650 OF 2024 (439-)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. RAMESH S/O. MUDDU RAMAYYA, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: PAINTER, R/O: BIRANAKAL, TQ: DIST: TUMAKURU.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. NEELENDRA.D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KOPPAL WOMEN POLICE STATION,

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001.

¶13

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI

¶14

SMT. YALLAMMA YATNATTI W/O. KAMALAPATI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: NANDI NAGAR, KOPPAL-583231, TQ: DIST. KOPPAL.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

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

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN CRIME NO.15/2024 PENDING BEFORE ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1, AT KOPPAL REGISTERED WITH KOPPAL WOMEN POLICE REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 376(1), 448 OF IPC AND SECTION 4, 8 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2012, IN SPL. S.C POCSO NO.22/2024.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC-D:8980 CRL.P No. 101650 of 2024

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Heard Sri Neelendra.D.Gunde, learned counsel for

¶24

the petitioner and Smt. Kirtilata R.Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court seeking regular bail in Crime No.15/2024 of respondent police station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 448 of IPC and Section 4, 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012.

¶26

It is the case of the prosecution that Smt. Yallamma W/o Kamalapati Yatnatti lodged a complaint against the petitioner stating that her elder daughter aged about 17 years was studying in I PUC. Her elder daughter created instagram and acquainted with the petitioner. Thereafter, they started talking with each other. Six months ago, on 15.10.2023, when the complainant had been to her work, the petitioner herein went to her house and was talking along with her daughter. Thereafter, he

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8980 CRL.P No. 101650 of 2024

¶28

said to have committed sexual assault on the same day. After the incident, he went back to his native. Again, he came to Koppal and calling her frequently and asked her to meet him. After having received the said information from her daughter, she lodged a complaint stating that the petitioner had committed rape or sexual assault against minor girl and requested the police to take suitable action against the petitioner. The jurisdictional police have registered a case in Crime No.15/2024 for the offences stated supra. After investigation, submitted the charge sheet.

¶29

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant filed a false complaint against the petitioner only in order to avoid him from contacting her daughter. Though the alleged incident said to have taken place on 15.10.2023, complaint came to be registered on 14.03.2024, i.e. after the complainant learnt that her daughter was loving the petitioner. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Even the medical report did not disclose that there was recent act of sexual

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8980 CRL.P No. 101650 of 2024

¶31

assault committed by the petitioner. Except the statement of the victim, no other witnesses have supported either presence of the petitioner in the house of the victim or his whereabouts as on the date of the alleged incident. The entire case rests on the statement of the victim that cannot be safe to rely her statement at this stage.

¶32

It is further submitted that the life and liberty of the person also necessarily considered while considering the bail application. Merely, because of the statement of the victim, he cannot be languished in judicial custody for a longer period. Even assuming that the medical report goes against the petitioner that cannot be sufficient to keep him in judicial custody for a longer period.

¶33

It is further submitted that the petitioner is aged about 26 years and permanent resident of Biranakal village, Tumkur Taluk and he is the earning member of the family. Therefore, the application of the petitioner may be considered by imposing conditions. He will abide the conditions imposed by this Court, in the event of his

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8980 CRL.P No. 101650 of 2024

¶35

release on bail. Making such submission, the learned

¶36

counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶37

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that the act of committing sexual assault against the minor girl is heinous. The petitioner forcibly committed the sexual assault against the minor who is aged about 17 years as on the date of the alleged incident. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there may be chances of threatening the victim and the complainant and also there may be chances of absconding from the case. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant him bail till recording the evidence of the witnesses or the conclusion of the trial. 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 and complaint, it appears that the victim had opened the account in instagram and acquainted with the petitioner and both were talking with each other. She was

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8980 CRL.P No. 101650 of 2024

¶40

studying at I PUC as on the date of the alleged incident. She did not disclose the act of the sexual assault to her mother till 14.03.2024 even though the alleged incident taken place on 15.10.2023. The medical report indicates that no such act taken place recently.

¶41

In my considered opinion, it is not appropriate

¶42

to rely on the sole testimony of the victim to conclude that the petitioner has committed the offence. Having considered the said aspect and the age of the victim, it is appropriate to grant him bail by imposing conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petition is allowed.

¶45

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in

¶46

Crime No. No.15/2024 respondent 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:

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8980 CRL.P No. 101650 of 2024

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

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.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

VMB CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Mr Ramesh S/O Muddu Ramayya v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Ramesh S/O Muddu Ramayya 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

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

Shri Huvani Alias Hari Parashram Margale, Vs the State of Karnataka