Allowed

Sri Ranjith Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2024CRL.P/10435/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail sought in a POCSO special case for offences including Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO. The court noted the FIR and the victim's Section 164 statement contained no penetrative sexual assault allegations, the petitioner was young with no antecedents and had been in custody nine months, and granted bail on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of regular appearance and no tampering with witnesses.

Sri Ranjith Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:46438 CRL.P No. 10435 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10435 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.RANJITH KUMAR S/O RAMESH BABU AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT TAMAKA 1^ST CROSS NEAR SAI MITRA FACTORY KOLAR - 563 103

¶9

PERMANENT ADDRESS R/O BALAGERE VILLAGE KYASAMBALLI HOBLI K.G.F. TALUK KOLAR - 563121

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed (BY SRI.ABHILASH KUMAR M.N., ADVOCATE FOR by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH SRI.NANJUNDA GOWDA M R.,ADVOCATE) COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KOLAR WOMEN POLICE STATION KOLAR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BENGALURU - 560 001

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:46438 CRL.P No. 10435 of 2024

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

2. XXX

¶18

(BY SRI.RAHUL RAI K, HCGP FOR R.1; V/O/D 11.11.2024 NOTICE TO R.2 IS H/S)

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC.439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL SPECIAL CASE (POCSO) NO.69/2024 NOW WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-I (POCSO), KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC.323, 354, 354(D), 363, 504, 506, 509, 376 OF IPC AND SEC. 6 OF POCSO ACT, 2012 AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The accused in Special Case (POCSO) No.69/2024 pending before the Court of Additional District and

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:46438 CRL.P No. 10435 of 2024

¶25

Sessions Judge, FTSC-I (POCSO), Kolar District, Kolar arising out of Crime No.17/2024 registered by the Kolar Women Police Station, Kolar for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 354(D), 363, 504, 506, 509 and 379 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 is before this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking regular bail.

¶26

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2, who is served in the matter, has remained unrepresented before this Court.

¶27

3. FIR in Crime No.17/2024 was registered by the Kolar Women Police Station, Kolar against the petitioner herein initially for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 354, 354(D), 363, 504, 506, 509 and 511 of IPC and Section 12 of 'POCSO Act' on the basis of the first information dated 15.02.2024 received from the victim girl, who is the daughter of respondent No.2 herein. During the course of investigation of the case, the petitioner was arrested on 15.02.2024. Subsequently, he

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:46438 CRL.P No. 10435 of 2024

¶30

was remanded to judicial custody. Investigation in the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed against him for the aforesaid offences. The bail application filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court in Special Case (POCSO) No.69/2024 was rejected on 03.07.2024. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶31

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is youngster aged 21 years and he has no criminal antecedents. He is in custody for the last nine months. Investigation in the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Section 6 of the 'POCSO Act' was not invoked in the FIR. The victim girl has not made any allegations against the petitioner about he sexually assaulting her in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, prays to allow the petition.

¶32

5. Per contra , learned HCGP opposed the bail petition and submits that the victim girl in her further statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C has made allegations, which would attract the alleged offences

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:46438 CRL.P No. 10435 of 2024

¶34

against the petitioner. In the event the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he is likely to tamper with the prosecution witnesses and accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.

¶35

6. In the first information dated 15.02.2024, which was submitted by the victim girl, she has stated that the petitioner, who hails from Tamaka Village, was acquainted to her. The petitioner was following her and was pestering her. He allegedly had assaulted the victim girl and also had come near her house and had tortured her. He had also threatened to commit the murder of the victim girl’s younger brother and the victim girl, who was pained because of the acts committed by the petitioner, allegedly had informed in her house that she does not intend to study further. She also allegedly had made attempt to commit suicide and she was admitted in the hospital. It is, in this background, she went to the Police Station on 15.02.2024 and submitted first information, based on which, FIR came to be registered against the petitioner.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:46438 CRL.P No. 10435 of 2024

¶38

7. Perusal of the first information would go to show that the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and

¶39

Section 6 of POCSO Act was not invoked against the petitioner in the FIR. During the course of investigation, the petitioner herein was arrested on 15.02.2024 and subsequently, he was remanded to judicial custody. Investigation, in this case, is completed and charge sheet has been filed. During the course of investigation, statement of the victim girl was recorded by the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

¶40

In the said statement, the victim girl has not made any allegations against the petitioner, which would attract the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. Even in the initial statement made by the victim girl before the Police, she had not made such allegations. Only in her further statement that was recorded by the Police, she has made allegations of penetrative sexual assault against the petitioner.

¶41

The petitioner is aged about 21 years and has no criminal antecedents. He is in the custody from 15.02.2024.

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:46438 CRL.P No. 10435 of 2024

¶43

Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that the prayer of grant of regular bail needs to be answered in the affirmative. Accordingly, the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶46

(ii) The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Special Case (POCSO) No.69/2024 arising out of Crime No.17/2024 registered by the Kolar Women Police Station, Kolar for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 354(D), 363, 504, 506, 509 and 379 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, subject to the following conditions;

¶47

a) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶48

b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:46438 CRL.P No. 10435 of 2024

¶51

c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶52

d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future.

¶53

SD/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶54

NBM

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Sri Ranjith Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ranjith Kumar 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. Venkataraju Vs State by Dibburahalli Ps

Mr. Shankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Dinesh @ Tenatos Vs the State of Karnataka

Prasanna @ Prasannakumara Vs the State of Karnataka

Kempegowda B K Vs the State of Karnataka

Sadath Vs State of Karnataka