Allowed

Sharath @ Thammaiah v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2024CRL.P/4430/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused in a case involving offences under IPC, POCSO Act and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Considering custody since apprehension, victim's statements, medical report and charge sheet stage, the court allowed bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail on Rs.2,00,000 bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including no commission of similar offences and no tampering with witnesses.

Sharath @ Thammaiah Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:26063 CRL.P No. 4430 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4430 OF 2024 (439)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHARATH @ THAMMAIAH S/O DYAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/A DEVEGOWDA NAGARA, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SACHIN D D., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HASSAN WOMEN POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

DHARMA

¶16

S/O BASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, JANATHA COLONY, TATTEKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN - 573201.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SHASHIKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:26063 CRL.P No. 4430 of 2024

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.78/2023 REGISTERED BY HASSAN WOMEN POLICE STATION, HASSAN AND IN SPL.C.NO.551/2023 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTSC-1) AT HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376, 504 OF IPC AND SEC. 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SEC. 9 AND 10 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.78/2023 of Hassan Police Station, pending in Spl.C.No.551/2023 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTSC-1), Hassan, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 504 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act'), Sections 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Keerthana.

¶25

Heard Sri. Sachin D.D., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rahul Rai K., learned High Court

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:26063 CRL.P No. 4430 of 2024

¶27

Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State and

¶28

Sri. Shashi Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

¶29

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

the following:

¶34

R E A S O N S

¶35

The petitioner being accused No.1 is seeking

¶36

grant of bail. He was apprehended on 29.07.2023 and since then, he is in judicial custody.

¶37

It is stated that accused No.3 is already

¶38

enlarged on bail, while accused No.2 is still absconding. Victim, aged 16 years has given statement making specific allegations against all the accused including the petitioner.

¶39

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:26063 CRL.P No. 4430 of 2024

¶40

It is stated that she was in love with the petitioner and they married about a month earlier to the incident. Accused No.2 is the mother of the victim and accused No.3 is the maternal uncle of the victim and they have arranged the marriage of the minor with the petitioner. Statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., was recorded

¶41

by the learned Magistrate, wherein she has specifically stated about her marriage with the petitioner as they were in love with one another. She has also stated that her mother-in-law assaulted her. However, she has not stated about sexual assault committed by the petitioner. The medical examination report discloses that the victim has not sustained any external injuries. However, medical report discloses that victim is used to the act of intercourse but there was absence of evidence of recent sexual intercourse. Charge sheet is already filed and it is stated that now the matter is for hearing before charge.

¶42

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-the father

¶43

of the victim submits no objection to allow the petition. It

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:26063 CRL.P No. 4430 of 2024

¶45

is pertinent to note that petitioner is aged about 24 years. 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, as otherwise the petitioner may come in contact with hardcore criminals, which will not be in the

¶46

best interest of the petitioner.

¶47

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶48

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

The petition is allowed.

¶51

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.78/2023 of Hassan Police Station, pending in Spl.C.No.551/2023 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTSC-1), Hassan, 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:

¶52

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶53

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:26063 CRL.P No. 4430 of 2024

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

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.

¶57

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.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

SKS

Sharath @ Thammaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharath @ Thammaiah 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

Chandu Vs State by Kundapura Police Station

Ullas Vs State by Nandini Layout Police Station

Santhosh @ Shantakumar Vs State by Honnali Police Station

Suresh Kumar @ Pichaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravisha H L @ Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka

Suman Vs the State of Karnataka