Allowed

Girish v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2024CRL.P/5831/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail petition by an 18-year-old accused charged under POCSO Act and IPC, noting investigation was complete and he had not committed the principal assault. Bail was granted subject to conditions and sureties to prevent witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

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

Girish Vs the State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:24481 CRL.P No. 5831 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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5831 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GIRISH, S/O HARISH, NOW AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, R/AT BUDITITTU VILLAGE, KODIGEHALLI HOBLI, YELANDURU TLAUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 441

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH .B. MUCHANDI,

¶11

SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA K.A., ADVOCATES)

¶12

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

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF AKKUR POLICE STATION, CHANNAPATTANA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159. REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

VENKATESHA, S/O LATE KUNNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT JAGADAPURA VILLAGE, VIRUPAKSHIPURA CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:24481 CRL.P No. 5831 of 2024

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.215/2023 OF AKKUR P.S., RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376(2)(I) OF IPC AND SEC.4(2), 6, 15, 14 OF POCSO ACT 2012 AND SEC.67(A) OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN SPL.C(POCSO) NO.2/2024.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.215/2023 of Akkur Police Station, pending in Spl.Case (POCSO) No.2/2024 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i) of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Sections 4(2), 6, 15 & 14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Smt.Gowramma.

¶23

Heard Sri.Siddharth B Muchandi, learned counsel for Sri.Chandrashekara K.A, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:24481 CRL.P No. 5831 of 2024

¶25

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶26

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

¶27

“Whether the petitioner is entitled 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 accused No.2 is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 07.11.2023 and since then he is in judicial custody. The mother of the victim lodged the first information against accused No.1 for the above said offences. During investigation, the statement of the victim was recorded, wherein, she has stated that the video recorded by accused No.1 while committing sexual assault was shared with accused No.2 and in turn, accused No.2 shared with CW4 and others. The statement of CW4 was also recorded, who supports the contention of the victim that it was this petitioner who shared the private video with him.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:24481 CRL.P No. 5831 of 2024

¶33

Admittedly, the investigation is completed and the

¶34

charge sheet is filed. The allegation of committing penetrative sexual assault is against accused No.1. The petitioner is hardly aged 18 years. Under such circumstances, his detention in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment and it may bring him in contact with hardcore criminals, which is not in the best interest of the petitioner. 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.

¶35

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶36

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.215/2023 of Akkur 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:

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:24481 CRL.P No. 5831 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/-

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

¶49

Girish v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish 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

Suresh Shivaram Bhat Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt. Radha M Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Abrar Pasha @ Sulthan Vs State of Karnataka