Allowed

Sri Ajith S/O Elumalai, v. State by J P Nagar Police Station

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2024CRL.P/2088/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by the sole accused in a POCSO and rape case involving a minor victim who had since delivered a child. The Court held detention would amount to pre-trial punishment as the accused was not required for further investigation, allowed bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in Crime No. 34/2024 on bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions.

Sri Ajith S/O Elumalai, Vs State by J P… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:22830 CRL.P No. 2088 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2088 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. AJITH S/O ELUMALAI, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO.98/2, 6^TH MAIN, KSRTC LAYOUT, RAGIGUDDA SLUM, J.P. NAGAR 2^ND PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. C.R. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE BY J.P. NAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

VICTIM REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SMT. AMBIKA W/O RAJAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.98/2, 6^TH MAIN, KSRTC LAYOUT, RAGIGUDDA SLUM, J.P. NAGAR 2^ND PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. S.G. RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO RELEASE HIM ON BAIL, WHO IS ACCUSED IN CR.NO.34/2024 HONBLE ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE FTSC-III AT BENGALURU (FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT-III (FTSC-III) CITY CIVIL COURT AT BENGALURU) AGAINST ACCUSED PERSON FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376 OF IPC, 6 OF POCSO ACT, 2012 AND SEC. 9 PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT, 2006, IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER.

¶17

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

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:22830 CRL.P No. 2088 of 2024

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., in Crime No. 34/2024 of Jayaprakash Police Station, pending on the file of the learned Addl. City Civil and Session Judge, FTSC-III, City Court Complex, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO') and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Smt. Abhinaya.

¶21

Heard Sri. C.R. Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitione, Smt. K.P. Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri. S.G. Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

¶22

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:22830 CRL.P No. 2088 of 2024

¶24

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶25

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶26

R E A S O N S

¶27

The petitioner being the sole accused is seeking grant of bail. The victim girl has lodged the first information by making specific allegations. It is noticed that by that time, the victim was 17 years old, was already pregnant and later delivered the child. Even though, it is stated that the victim girl has not supported the version of the prosecution in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., there are incriminating materials produced by the prosecution to connect the petitioner to the offence in question. However, it is noticed that the petitioner is hardly aged 24 years. The petitioner is not required for further investigation. His detention in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:22830 CRL.P No. 2088 of 2024

¶30

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶31

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petition is allowed.

¶34

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 34/2024 of Jayaprakash Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶35

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶36

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶37

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶38

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶39

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:22830 CRL.P No. 2088 of 2024

¶41

documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

JS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT: BHK

Sri Ajith S/O Elumalai, v. State by J P Nagar Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ajith S/O Elumalai, v. State by J P Nagar Police Station

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 Dhanush Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Yeshwanth H a Vs State of Karnataka

Kumara Vs State of Karnataka

Shivu @ Guddadaiah Vs State by Balur Police Station

Sri Manjunatha S @ Manjanna Vs State of Karnataka

Akhilash H P Vs State of Karnataka