Allowed

Odesh Raj Urs v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2024CRL.P/3694/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail petition of the sole accused in a case involving offences under IPC Sections 366-A, 376(2)(i)(n), 506, POCSO Act, and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The court noted the victim had delivered a baby and had no objection, stating detention would further victimize them.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions not to commit similar offences, not to tamper with witnesses, and to appear before the Court.

Odesh Raj Urs Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:25415 CRL.P No. 3694 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3694 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ODESH RAJ URS S/O LATE. NANJUNDA RAJ URS AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT KOODLURU VILLAGE, MALURU HOBLI, CHANNAPATTANA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VIJAYA RAJAARSU .R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: high court of karnataka

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE BY CHANNAPATNA RURAL POLICE STATION, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001

¶14

XXX D/O LATE. SHEKAR RAJ URS MINOR REP BY MOTHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. PREMAMMANNI R/AT GUNKAPURA VILLAGE, HALAGURU HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 421

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI .K., HCGP FOR R1

¶17

SMT. BINDU .S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.14/2024 REGISTERED BY CHANNAPATNA RURAL POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 366-A, 376(2)(I)(N) AND 506 OF IPC AND SEC.5(1), 5(L), 5(J)(2) AND 6 POCSO ACT 2012 AND SEC.9, 10 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE RAMANAGARA.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:25415 CRL.P No. 3694 of 2024

¶21

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.14/2024 of Channapatna Rural Police Station, pending on the file of the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge & Spl.Judge, Ramanagara, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366-A, 376(2)(i)(n) and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), and section 4(1), 5(L), 5(J)(2) and 6 POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Premammanni.

¶24

Heard Sri. Vijaya Rajaarsu R, learned counsel for

¶25

the petitioner, Sri. Rahul Rai K, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 -State and Smt. Bindu S, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

¶26

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

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25415 CRL.P No. 3694 of 2024

¶28

“Whether the petitioner is entitled

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

R E A S O N S

¶32

The petitioner being the sole accused is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 15.02.2024 and since then, he is in judicial custody.

¶33

The mother of the victim lodged the first information making specific allegations. However, as per the facts of the case, the date of birth of the victim is 27.03.2006 and the petitioner married her on 29.12.2022 i.e., when the victim was still aged 16½ years. When the victim admitted to the hospital for delivery, this fact came to light on 20.01.2024 and the victim delivered the baby girl. It is now aged five months.

¶34

It is the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is now aged 37 years and knowing fully well that the victim is still a minor, married her and committed penetrative

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:25415 CRL.P No. 3694 of 2024

¶36

sexual assault and thereby committed the offences as stated above. However, the fact remains that the victim has already delivered the baby and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the informant and the victim have no objection to allow the petition.

¶37

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that no purpose would be served in detaining the petitioner in custody as it would further victimize the victim and the informant. 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.

¶38

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

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petition is allowed.

¶41

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.14/2024 of Channapatna Rural 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:

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:25415 CRL.P No. 3694 of 2024

¶43

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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.

¶47

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.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

SPV

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Odesh Raj Urs v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Odesh Raj Urs 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

Sri. Dhyaneshwara Vs the State of Karantaka

Muniya v Vs State of Karnataka

Saravanan Vs State by Puttenahalli Police Station

Amar Singh Dhami Vs the State of Karnataka

Arjuna D a Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Soma @ Somashekhar Vs State of Karnataka