Allowed

Shivu @ B Shivarajkumara v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2024CRL.P/243/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sole accused in a POCSO, kidnapping and child marriage case sought regular bail. The victim's Section 164 statement showed she eloped voluntarily and married him; prosecution witnesses had not appeared. Considering the petitioner's young age and period in custody, the High Court allowed the bail petition on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including no similar offences, no witness tampering, court appearance, and IO verification of surety documents within 5 day

Shivu @ B Shivarajkumara Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:26336 CRL.P No. 243 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 243 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHIVU @ B. SHIVARAJKUMARA S/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS R/AT S.V.B BRICKS FACTORY BIDARGERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK. PERMANENT ADDRESS ALLURU VILLAGE AND POST CHITTAPURA HOBLI AND TALUK GULBARGA DISTRICT

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. M. KRISHNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA by CHAITHRA A STATE BY ANEKAL P.S. Location: HIGH REPTD BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR COURT OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KARNATAKA BANGALORE–560 001.

¶14

VICTIM

¶15

REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER SRI BASAVARAJU S/O SHARANAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT S.V.B BRICKS FACTORY BIDARGERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:26336 CRL.P No. 243 of 2024

¶18

ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI .K, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGING THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.244/2023 OF ANEKAL POLICE, NOW IN SPL.C.NO.1270/2023 BEFORE THE HONBLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, FTSC-III, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 363, 366(a), 376 OF IPC, U/S 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT, 2012 AND U/S 9 OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.244/2023 of Anekal Police Station, pending in Spl.C.No.1270/2023 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-III, Bengaluru Rural District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(a), 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), under Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:26336 CRL.P No. 243 of 2024

¶27

and under Section 9 of the Child Marriage Act on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Basavaraju.

¶28

Heard Sri. M.Krishne Gowda, learned Counsel

¶29

for the petitioner and Sri. Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶30

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶31

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:26336 CRL.P No. 243 of 2024

¶36

R E A S O N S

¶37

The petitioner being the sole accused is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 19.09.2023 and since then he is in judicial custody.

¶38

Initially, the father of the victim filed the complaint alleging that his minor daughter is found missing. During investigation, the petitioner was apprehended and the victim was rescued. It is stated that the petitioner kidnapped the minor girl, married her, committed sexual assault and has committed the offences as stated above. Even though the prosecution has placed sufficient materials to prima facie constitute the offence, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. discloses that she has not supported the case of the prosecution. On the other hand, she has stated that she was in love with the petitioner and she voluntarily eloped with him and both of them married and are having relationship.

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:26336 CRL.P No. 243 of 2024

¶40

Learned counsel submits that CW.2 is the victim

¶41

and CW.3 is the mother of the victim and they have not appeared before the trial Court. Their presence could not be secured inspite of issuing non-bailable warrant.

¶42

It is pertinent to note that the petitioner is aged

¶43

about 19 years. If he is detained in custody, there is every possibility of coming in contact with hardcore criminals, which will not be in the best interest of the petitioner.

¶44

Considering all these facts and 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.

¶45

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

The petition is allowed.

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:26336 CRL.P No. 243 of 2024

¶49

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.244/2023 of Anekal 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:

¶50

a) The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

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.

¶54

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 documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:26336 CRL.P No. 243 of 2024

¶57

and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days.

¶58

The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Shivu @ B Shivarajkumara v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivu @ B Shivarajkumara 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

Suresh Kumar @ Pichaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravisha H L @ Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sharath @ Thammaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Prasanna Vs State by Kanakapura Town Police Station

Sri Manjunatha C Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Rohith B D @ Ravi Vs the State by