Allowed

Sri Mariyappa @ Marappa S/O Gurupad v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2024CRL.P/2627/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought by accused No.1 in a case involving marriage of a minor girl and alleged penetrative sexual assault under POCSO, IPC and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The victim's statement supported no allegation against him; his co-accused mother had already been granted anticipatory bail. The Court granted bail on parity with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on anticipatory bail in Crime No. 2/2024 on bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties, to appear before IO within 15 days, subject to standard conditions.

Sri Mariyappa @ Marappa S/O Gurupad Vs State… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:24900 CRL.P No. 2627 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2627 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. MARIYAPPA @ MARAPPA S/O GURUPAD, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT 3^RD CROSS, NEAR CHAMUNDESHWARI TEMPLE, BANGARAPPA NAGAR, R.R. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 098.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. C.V. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY - 560 098, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

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

¶15

VICTIM GIRL C/O MANU DEV, DISTRICT CHILD PROTECTION UNIT, BANGALORE SOUTH, PAPPAREDDY PALYA, DCPO, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

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

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.2/2024 OF RAJAJESHWARI NAGAR P.S., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 376, 344 OF IPC AND SEC.4, 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SEC.9, 10 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT.

¶19

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

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:24900 CRL.P No. 2627 of 2024

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No. 2/2024 of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station, pending on the file of the learned Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-V, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 344 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), Sections 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO') on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Sri. Manu Dev.

¶23

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

¶24

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶25

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

¶26

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:24900 CRL.P No. 2627 of 2024

¶29

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

¶30

R E A S O N S

¶31

The petitioner being accused No.1 is seeking grant of anticipatory bail on the apprehension of being arrested. The DCPO, Bangalore South, lodged the first information against accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging commission of the offences punishable under the provision of IPC, POCSO Act and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he married the minor girl on 04.12.2023 and committed forcible penetrative sexual assault. The victim girl was rescued and given to the custody of her parents. The medical records discloses that the hymen was in normal condition and the sample was not collected, since thirty days have already lapsed from the last intercourse. The statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., was recorded, wherein the victim has not stated anything against the accused. On the other hand, she asserts that till she attains eighteen years, she will stay with her parents and thereafter, she will go with accused No.1.

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:24900 CRL.P No. 2627 of 2024

¶33

It is also pertinent to note that accused No.2 is the mother of the victim and is already granted anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.2484/2024 vide

¶34

order dated 22.04.2024. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that there is no reason to deny the benefit of parity to the present petitioner.

¶35

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

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition is allowed.

¶38

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 2/2024 of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station.

¶39

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge him on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶40

a. The petitioner shall furnish 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 Investigating Officer;

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:24900 CRL.P No. 2627 of 2024

¶42

b. The petitioner shall not commit any offences; c. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and

¶43

d. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶44

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the

¶45

Investigating Officer is at liberty to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by him.

¶46

On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed to accept the sureties within a reasonable time.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT: BHK

Sri Mariyappa @ Marappa S/O Gurupad v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mariyappa @ Marappa S/O Gurupad v. State of Karnataka by

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

Nagaraju G D Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sharath Kumar. K @ Sharu Vs State by Sheshadripuram P. S.

Sri. Madhu. M @ Madhu Kumar. M (A2) Vs the State of Karnataka

Narayana Moolya Alias Bandasura Vs State of Karnataka

Harshath Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Murali Vs the State of Karnataka