Allowed

Sri. Nikhil Kumar R @ Nikhil Bhayia @ Nikhil @ Bayya v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2024CRL.P/2442/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A 19-year-old sole accused in a POCSO case under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 4(2) POCSO Act sought regular bail after charge sheet. The victim had not supported the prosecution and declined internal examination. Bail was granted on conditions with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including no similar offences, no witness tampering, and appearance as required.

Sri. Nikhil Kumar R @ Nikhil Bhayia @ Nikhil… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:24298 CRL.P No. 2442 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2442 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. NIKHIL KUMAR R @ NIKHIL BHAYIA @ NIKHIL @ BAYYA, S/O RAMJI, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, NARASIMHA MURTHY BUILDING, BASHETTEHALLI, VINAYAKA NAGARA, R/AT BASHETTYHALLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. AJAY N, ADVOCATE AND SRI. SIDDAPPA V.D, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAJANAKUNTE POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY H.G.C.P HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

SAVITHA, W/O MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, MYLAPURAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 088.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:24298 CRL.P No. 2442 of 2024

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.1373/2023 (CR.NO.263 OF 2023) REGISTERED IN RAJANKUNTE POLICE STATION, PENDING THE COURT OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTSC-III) BANGALORE RURAL AT BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376(3) OF IPC AND SEC. 4(2) OF PREVENTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., in Crime.No.263/2023 of Rajankunte Police Station, pending in Spl.C.No.1373/2023 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTSC-III), Bangalore Rural, Bangalore, registered for the offence punishable under Section 376(3) of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 4(2) of Prevention Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, (for short 'POCSO Act') on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Smt.Savitha.

¶22

Heard Sri. Ajay.N and Sri.Siddappa V.D, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rahul Rai, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Respondent

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:24298 CRL.P No. 2442 of 2024

¶24

No.2 is served, but unrepresented. Perused the materials on record.

¶25

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

¶26

“Whether the petitioner is entitled

¶27

for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶28

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

¶29

R E A S O N S

¶30

The petitioner being the sole accused is seeking

¶31

grant of bail. He was apprehended on 20.10.2023 and since then he is in judicial custody.

¶32

The mother of the victim lodged the complaint against the petitioner for the offences as stated above. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. It is stated that the victim was aged about 15 years at the time of incident.

¶33

On perusal of the copy of out-patient record of the General Hospital, Yelahanka, it discloses that both the mother and the victim were not willing to undergo any kind of physical internal

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:24298 CRL.P No. 2442 of 2024

¶35

examination. The statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C was recorded. The victim has not supported the case of the prosecution. Now the matter is pending for trial. The petitioner is aged about 19 years. If he is detained in custody, he may come in contact with hard core criminals, which will not be in the best interest of the petitioner. Hence, 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.

¶36

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

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petition is allowed.

¶39

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.263/2023 of Rajankunte Police Station, pending in Spl.C.No.1373/2023 on the file of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTSC-III), Bangalore Rural, Bangalore, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:24298 CRL.P No. 2442 of 2024

¶41

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

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.

¶45

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 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.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

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

Sri. Nikhil Kumar R @ Nikhil Bhayia @ Nikhil @ Bayya v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Nikhil Kumar R @ Nikhil Bhayia @ Nikhil @ Bayya 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

Mr George a Fernandis Vs State of Karnataka

Milan S/O Halim Vs State by K.R. Pura Police Bengaluru

M B Shankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Girish Vs the State of Karnataka

Suresh Shivaram Bhat Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt. Radha M Vs State of Karnataka