Allowed

Lakshmikanth v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2024CRL.P/201095/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed bail to a 22-year-old accused in a POCSO case involving alleged abduction of a minor for marriage purposes. The court held the allegations of penetrative sexual assault were unproven and granted bail subject to standard 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 appearance and non-interference with witnesses.

Lakshmikanth Vs the State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8325 CRL.P No. 201095 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201095 OF 2024

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

LAKSHMIKANTH S/O MAREPPA AGE ABOUT 22 YEARS OCCUPATION DRIVER RESIDENT OF H NO.4-375 BAGODI ROAD, NEAR BHAGYAMMA TEMPLE MUDABOOL TQ CHITTAPUR DIST KALAURAGI, NOW RESIDING NEAR HOSAPALYA BUS STAND, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU CITY, PIN CODE - 560 068.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI MARTHANDAPPA MALLESHAPPA ALLUR, ADV.) AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA SINDHANUR, RURAL P.S TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH - 585 107.

¶15

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VEERANNA GOUDA G MALI PATIL, HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED)

¶17

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C (OLD), 483 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.1 U/S 439 CR.P.C./ U/S 483 BNSS AND RELEASE HIM ON BAIL IN CR.NO.62/2024 OF SINDHANUR RURAL

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:8325 CRL.P No. 201095 of 2024

¶19

P.S. NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONOURABLE III ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT RAICHUR, SITTING AT SINDHANUR, IN SPL. CASE (POCSO) NO. 5349/2024 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 366(A), 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/S 8 AND 12 OF POCSO ACT, 2012, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THE III-ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR SITTING AT SINDHANUR AND SPL. CASE (POCSO) NO.5349/2024 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 366(A), 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/S 8 AND 12 OF POCSO ACT, 2012, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶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

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶24

Accused No.1 in Spl. Case (POCSO).No.5349/2024

¶25

pending before the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Raichur, arising out of Crime No.62/2024 registered by Sindanoor Police Station, Raichur District for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 366A R/w 34 of IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, is before this Court seeking regular bail.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8325 CRL.P No. 201095 of 2024

¶29

Respondent No.2 who is served in the matter has remained unrepresented before this Court.

¶30

FIR in Crime No.62/2024 was registered by Sindanoor Police Station, Raichur District for the aforesaid offences against petitioner and another, on the basis of first information dated 19.03.2024 received from respondent No.2 herein who is the mother of the victim girl. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested and produced before the jurisdictional Court on 31.03.2024 and remanded to judicial custody. Investigation in the case is complete and charge sheet has been filed against two persons and the petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.1 in the charge sheet filed for the aforesaid offences.

¶31

The bail application filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.No.5266/2024 was dismissed on 07.08.2024. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8325 CRL.P No. 201095 of 2024

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶35

the petitioner is an youngster aged about 22 years having no criminal antecedents. The petitioner is in custody for the last seven months. The victim girl has not made any allegation of penetrative sexual assault committed on her by the accused persons. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶36

Per contra , learned HCGP for respondent No.1 has opposed the petition.

¶37

In the first informant that was submitted by respondent No.2, who is the mother of the victim girl it is averred that, the petitioner was pestering her minor daughter to love him and also to marry him. On 16.03.2024, when the first informant was in her house her minor daughter who was washing clothes was found missing and on enquiry the first informant came to know that the petitioner and three others, who came there had forcibly taken the victim girl in a car. Thereafter, the son of the first informant was allegedly informed by the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8325 CRL.P No. 201095 of 2024

¶40

petitioner that he had taken the victim girl along with him and he intends to marry her. On the next day, the victim girl returned home.

¶41

On 19.03.2024, the first informant had

¶42

approached the police and FIR was registered against the petitioner and another. The statement of the victim girl under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, was recorded by the jurisdictional Magistrate, wherein she has not made any allegation against the petitioner or any other accused person about they committing any act of penetrative sexual assault on her. The victim girl who was allegedly kidnapped by the petitioner and others on 16.03.2024 undisputedly had returned home on 17.03.2024 itself but FIR was registered on 19.03.2024, after delay of two days. Investigation in the case is complete and charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner who has no other criminal antecedents is in custody from 31.03.2024.

¶43

Considering the nature of allegation found in the charge sheet against the petitioner and also his age, I

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8325 CRL.P No. 201095 of 2024

¶46

am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail is required to be answered affirmatively.

¶47

Accordingly, the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

The Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶50

The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Spl. Case (POCSO).No.5349/2024 pending before the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Raichur, arising out of Crime No.62/2024 registered by Sindanoor Police Station, Raichur District for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 366A R/w 34 of IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, subject to the following conditions:

¶51

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;

¶52

b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8325 CRL.P No. 201095 of 2024

¶55

unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶56

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

¶57

d) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.

¶58

SD/(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶59

NMS

Lakshmikanth v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmikanth 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

Sonu Alias Mohammadsonu Vs the State of Karnataka

Vinayak S/O. Narayan Bhat, Vs the State of Karnataka

N Raisa Begum Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Bhimrao Vs the State of Karnataka

Neelakantrao Vs the State of Karnataka

Union Bank of India Vs Bangareppa S/O Virupakshappa Pujar