Allowed

Sri Tejas M K @ Pandu v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2024CRL.P/229/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the petitioner accused of kidnapping, sexual assault, and child marriage involving a minor victim aged under 18. The Court relied on the victim's lack of allegations in her statement, her consent to travel with the petitioner, and the conclusion of investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail executing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions not to tamper with witnesses or indulge in criminal activities.

Sri Tejas M K @ Pandu Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 229 of 2024 NC: 2024:KHC:9543

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 229 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. TEJAS M.K @ PANDU, S/O KANTHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT MARASARAHALLI VILLAGE, HAROHALLI TALUK, RAMANAGARA - 562 112.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ANJAN KUMAR B.N, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶13

Digitally signed by SOWMYA D

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

BY SHO HAROHALLI POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

VICTIM, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER, SRI. SRINIVASA, R/AT KALLANAKUPPE VILLAGE, MARALAVADI HOBLI, HAROHALLI TALUK, RAMANAGARA TALUK - 562 112.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMANA, HCGP; R2 SERVED)

¶19

2 - CRL.P No. 229 of 2024 NC: 2024:KHC:9543

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.200/2023 OF HAROHALLI P.S., RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.363, 376(i) OF IPC AND SEC.4, 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SEC.9 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN SPL.C.NO.152/2023.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for enlarging him on bail in Spl.C.C.No.152/2023 arising out of Crime No.200/2023, Harohalli Police Station, Ramanagara, pending on the file of the 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(i) of the IPC read with Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of children from sexual offences (POCSO Act) 2012, as well as Section 9 of the Prohibition of the Child marriage Act, 2006.

¶24

The brief factual matrix leading to the case of

¶25

the prosecution are that, on 03.07.2023 at about 11.45 a.m., the daughter of the complainant, who is a minor

¶26

3 - CRL.P No. 229 of 2024 NC: 2024:KHC:9543

¶27

victim-girl, took her mother from the shop and dropped her at the house and she went out. There after, she did not return back to the shop and found missing. In this regard, a missing complaint was filed. Subsequently, the Police secured the victim and the petitioner in Kumbalgodu and on enquiry, the victim narrated that, the petitioner by alluring took her to Bengaluru through Anekal and from there to a temple in Adhichunchangiri Mutt main-arch, wherein, he tied the knot in the form of a turmeric thread to her neck. It is alleged that subsequently, they stayed in Kumbalgodu in a rented house. It is further alleged that in this period the petitioner having knowledge that the victim is minor committed sexual assault on the victim and later on the victim in the absence of the petitioner came to bus stand and there Police enquired her and brought her to Harohalli. In this regard, the petitioner was prosecuted for the aforesaid offences. He was apprehended and was remanded to judicial custody. During course of investigation the victim and the petitioner is subjected to

¶28

4 - CRL.P No. 229 of 2024 NC: 2024:KHC:9543

¶29

a medical test, and after completion, of the, investigation, the investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet. The petitioner has approached the learned Special Judge seeking regular bail and the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶30

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader-respondent No.1-State. The

¶31

respondent No.2 though served is unrepresented.

¶32

The Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that inadvertently the petitioner and victim girl did commit a mistake and it is only lack of knowledge and petitioner is now committed to marry the victim girl and in this regard, the mother of the petitioner has also filed an affidavit. He would also contend that the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. of the victim disclose that she had no allegations against the petitioner. Further asserts that

¶33

5 - CRL.P No. 229 of 2024 NC: 2024:KHC:9543

¶34

the investigation is concluded and charge sheet has been laid down by the investigating agency and as such, the presence of the petitioner is no more required by the investigating agency. Hence, he would seek for admitting the petitioner on bail.

¶35

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would oppose the bail petition.

¶36

From the records it is evident that,

¶37

investigation is concluded and the charge sheet has been already laid down. The statement of the victim recorded under section Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., disclose that the petitioner used to follow her and he allured her under the guise of committing suicide and took her to Anekal and from there to Adichunchangiri Mutt wherein he tied a knot in a temple in the form of a turmeric thread to her neck and further statement also disclose that in kumbalagodu they stayed for 2 days. It is alleged that later on when she went to bus stand, the Police traced her and brought her

¶38

6 - CRL.P No. 229 of 2024 NC: 2024:KHC:9543

¶39

to Harohalli. Her statement discloses that she has not made any allegations against the petitioner regarding sexual assault. However, the medical records disclose that the petitioner did have sexual intercourse and her hymen was not intact.

¶40

However, it is evident that the investigation is concluded and charge sheet is already submitted. Further the petitioner has also shown the inclination to marry the victim girl. It is for the victim girl to take a call in this regard and her silence all along by travelling with the petitioner disclose that she was a consenting party. Apart from that, while travelling with the petitioner she has not raised any hue and cry and further she was capable of understanding the things, since she was aged about more than 17 years but less than 18 years. Looking to these facts and circumstances, I do not find any impediment in admitting the petitioner on bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned High Court Government Pleader, can be meted by imposing certain conditions. Hence, the

¶41

¶42

CRL.P No. 229 of 2024 NC: 2024:KHC:9543

¶43

petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The petition is allowed .

¶46

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 02/2024 of Harohalli Police Station, Ramanagara, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(i) of the IPC read with Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of children from of sexual offences (POCSO Act), as well as Section 9 of the Prohibition of the Child marriage Act, which is pending on the file of the 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that:

¶47

(i) He shall not indulge in any of the criminal activities

¶48

(ii) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶49

¶50

CRL.P No. 229 of 2024 NC: 2024:KHC:9543

¶51

(iii) He shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing, unless he is exempted by a specific order.

¶52

(iv) He shall co-operate for speedy disposal of the matter.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

JUDGE

¶55

URN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33 CT: BHK

Sri Tejas M K @ Pandu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Tejas M K @ Pandu 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

Bharath Kumar M Vs State of Karnataka by

Puneeth Kumar C Vs the State of Karnataka by

Ankit Kumar Vs Union of India

Sangappa @ Sangamesh @ Channabasava Vs State of Karnataka

Venkatesha K P Vs State of Karnataka by

Pradeep Das Vs State of Karnataka