Allowed

Sri Manjunatha C v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2024CRL.P/5442/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by the sole accused charged under Sections 366(A), 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act. Investigation complete, charge sheet filed; victim's Section 164 statement showed she went voluntarily without alleging sexual assault. The court allowed bail on bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties and conditions.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Manjunatha C Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:26340 CRL.P No. 5442 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. 5442 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MANJUNATHA .C S/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS OCC: LABOURER R/O CHIRADONI VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577 231.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. YADUNANDAN .N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SAGAR V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SHO / BASAVAPATNA POLICE DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

SMT. MAJAMMA W/O SHIVAJI RAO AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O CHIRADONI VILLAGE

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:26340 CRL.P No. 5442 of 2024

¶18

CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN CODE-577 231.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

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

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.175/2023 IN SPL.C.NO.13/2024 REGISTERED BY BASAVAPATNA POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 366(A), 376(2)(n) OF IPC AND SEC. 6 OF POCSO ACT ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I (POCSO), DAVANAGERE.

¶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.175/2023 of Basavapatna Police Station, pending in Spl.C.No.13/2024 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I (POCSO), Davanagere, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 6 of the Protection of Children

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:26340 CRL.P No. 5442 of 2024

¶27

from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant viz., Manjamma.

¶28

Heard Sri. Yadunandan N., learned counsel for Sri. Sagar V.Shastri, for the petitioner and Sri. Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. 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 the following:

¶33

R E A S O N S

¶34

The petitioner being the sole accused is seeking grant of bail. The petitioner was apprehended on 27.11.2023 and since then, he is in judicial custody.

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:26340 CRL.P No. 5442 of 2024

¶36

The mother of the victim filed the complaint alleging that her minor daughter is missing and she has suspected that the petitioner might have kidnapped her. During investigation, the minor was rescued and the petitioner was apprehended. The statement of the accused under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned Magistrate, wherein she states that she was in love with the petitioner since two years and has voluntarily gone with him and stayed at several places, but she has not stated about the sexual assault committed by the petitioner.

¶37

It is to be noticed here that the victim was aged 17 years and the petitioner was aged 25 years. The investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is required for further investigation. Detention of the petitioner in custody may bring him in contact with hardcore criminals, which will not be in the best interest of the petitioner.

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:26340 CRL.P No. 5442 of 2024

¶39

Considering all these facts and circumstances,

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The petition is allowed.

¶44

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.175/2023 of Basavapatna 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:

¶45

a) The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶46

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

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:26340 CRL.P No. 5442 of 2024

¶49

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

¶50

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.

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri Manjunatha C v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Manjunatha C v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

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

Shivu @ B Shivarajkumara Vs State of Karnataka

Prasanna Vs State by Kanakapura Town Police Station

Mr. Rohith B D @ Ravi Vs the State by