Allowed

Sathisha B v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2024CRL.P/6356/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an accused charged with offences under IPC, POCSO, and CMRA. The court noted the victim had attained majority and admitted to hospital delivery, granting bail subject to conditions and scrutinization of sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties subject to conditions including non-commitment of similar offences and appearance in court.

Sathisha B Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:25860 CRL.P No. 6356 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6356 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SATHISHA .B. S/O BALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT #59/6, 16^TH CROSS, 12^TH MAIN ROAD, J.C. NAGAR, KURUBARAHALLI, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 086

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

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

¶11

(BY SRI. MOHANKUMARA .D., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NANDINI LAYOUT POLICE STATION, REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶14

VICTIM, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO. E136, SANJAYGANDHI NAGAR, LAGGERE, BENGALURU - 58

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

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

¶17

SRI. RAGHAVENDRA GOWDA .D., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN CR.NO.196/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376(2)(N), 366 OF IPC AND SEC.5(L), 6 4RED BY THE RESPONDENT NANDINI LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGLAURU

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:25860 CRL.P No. 6356 of 2024

¶20

ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC II BENGALURU IN CRL.MISC.NO.5802/2024.

¶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. 196/2024 of Nandini Layout Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 366 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), Sections 5(L), 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012(for short 'POCSO') and Sections 11, 9 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Sumithra.

¶24

Heard Sri. Mohankumara. D, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Rahul Rai K, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 -State and Sri. Raghavendra Gowda.D, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25860 CRL.P No. 6356 of 2024

¶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 the sole accused is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 11.06.2024 and since then, he is in judicial custody. When the victim was examined in the hospital for pre-natal checkup, it was brought to the notice of the medical officer that she was still a minor. The statement of the victim came to be recorded. On the basis of the same, FIR was registered against the petitioner for the above said offences.

¶31

It is stated that the date of birth of the victim is 21.03.2006. The date of complaint is 10.06.2024. Now the victim has already attained majority.

¶32

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - victim submits that the victim has no objection to allow the petition. Admittedly, the statement under Section 164 of Cr.PC was not

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:25860 CRL.P No. 6356 of 2024

¶34

recorded. It is stated that now the victim is admitted to the hospital for delivery. 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 affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition is allowed.

¶38

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 196/2024 of Nandini Layout 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:

¶39

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:25860 CRL.P No. 6356 of 2024

¶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/JUDGE

¶47

SPV

¶48

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8

Sathisha B v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathisha B 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

Malike Saba Vs State of Karnataka

Devaraja P M Vs State of Karnataka

Odesh Raj Urs Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Syed Shahid Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Joseph Lawrence Mascarenhas Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ahmed Sharief Vs State of Karnataka