Allowed

Muniya v. Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2024CRL.P/5914/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted bail to the sole accused, an 21-year-old, accused of kidnapping, procuring marriage, and sexual assault under IPC Section 363 and POCSO. The bail was allowed as the victim refused medical examination, no objection was raised by the victim's mother in the statement, and the petitioner's age raised custody concerns.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Muniya v Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:25230 CRL.P No. 5914 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5914 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MUNIYA V S/O LATE VENKATESHA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT NO. 676, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, NEAR MARIYAMMA TEMPLE, VASANTHAPURA, BENGALURU PIN - 560 061

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

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

¶11

(BY SRI. SHARATH J.M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KANAKAPURA RURAL POLICE STATION, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

RATHNAMMA W/O KESHAVAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKAMUNDUWADI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK - 562 112.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

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

¶17

SRI. SHIVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO RELEASED HIM ON BAIL WHO IS ACCUSED IN CR.NO.20/2024

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:25230 CRL.P No. 5914 of 2024

¶20

(SPL.C.C.NO.63/2024) ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENT KANAKAPURA RURAL POLICE STATION, NOW PENDING ON I ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS AT RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 363 OF IPC AND SEC. 8 AND 12 OF POCSO ACT, 2012, SEC. 9 OF THE PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT, 2006, IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER.

¶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.20/2024 of Kanakapura Police Station, pending in Spl.C.C.No.63/2024 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, registered for the offences punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act') and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Rathnamma.

¶24

Heard Sri. Sharath J.M, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Rahul Rai K, learned High Court Government

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25230 CRL.P No. 5914 of 2024

¶26

Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶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 the sole accused is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 08.02.2024 and since then he is in judicial custody.

¶32

Initially, the mother of the victim lodged missing complaint. Later victim was rescued. It is stated that the petitioner induced the victim girl, married her and committed penetrative sexual assault. It is pertinent to note that the victim refused to undergo medical examination. Her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C was recorded by the learned

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:25230 CRL.P No. 5914 of 2024

¶34

Magistrate, wherein she has not made any allegation against the petitioner for having committed the offence as stated above. Moreover, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits no objection for allowing the petition.

¶35

Admittedly, charge sheet is already filed by the investigating officer. Petitioner is aged 21 years. If he is detained in custody, he may come in contact with hardcore criminals which may not be in the best interest of the petitioner. Considering all these facts, 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.

¶36

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 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.20/2024 of Kanakapura Police Station, pending in Spl.C.C.No.63/2024 on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:25230 CRL.P No. 5914 of 2024

¶41

the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶42

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

¶49

Muniya v. Vs State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muniya v. Vs 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

Dharshan S/O Late Venkatesha Vs State of Karnataka

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

Vishvanath Vs State of Karnataka

Dhurgappa Bhramappa Tamirikoppa Vs State of Karnataka by

Rahul. R Vs the State of Karnataka

Kalmesh Y Agasimani Vs State of Karnataka by Psi