Dismissed

Mohan Maaji v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Jun 2024CRL.P/79/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a bail petition for an 18-year-old accused charged with offences under IPC 376 and POCSO 5(L) read with 6 against a minor victim. The Court cited the accused's permanent residence in Odisha as a ground for denying bail, granting liberty to renew the prayer after evidence examination.

What did the court decide?

Bail petition dismissed. Liberty reserved to renew prayer for bail after trial court examines material witnesses. Trial court directed to examine witnesses within three months.

Mohan Maaji Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:23557 CRL.P No. 79 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 79 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MOHAN MAAJI, S/O JALANDAR MAAJI, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, R/AT: C/O NAGARAJ RENTED HOUSE, VADDARAPALYA GRAMA, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 562 105. PERMANENT ADDRESS, DALRIPADA JADAMUNDA, NUAPADA, ODISHA - 766 105

¶9

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: high court of karnataka

¶10

(BY SRI. M. KRISHNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, STATE BY ATTIBELE P.S., REPTD BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

VICTIM REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SMT.POONAM SAH, W/O ADAM SAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT RAMESH REDDY TENT HOUSE, GROUND FLOOR, KRISHNASAGAR, VADDARAPALYA, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL - 562 105

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI .K., HCGP

¶17

R2 - SD)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:23557 CRL.P No. 79 of 2024

¶20

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER OF BAIL ENLARGING THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.472/2023 OF ATTIBELE POLICE, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU RURAL (FTSC-III) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376 OF IPC AND U/S 5(L) AND 6 OF POCSO ACT.

¶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.472/2023 of Attibele Police Station, pending on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTSC-III), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru registered for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 5(L) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Smt. Poonam.

¶24

Heard Sri.M.Krishne Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Rahul Rai K, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:23557 CRL.P No. 79 of 2024

¶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 ‘negative’ for the

¶30

following:

¶31

R E A S O N S

¶32

The petitioner being the sole accused is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 31.10.2023 and since then he is in judicial custody. The mother of the victim lodged the first information making specific allegations. It is noticed that the victim is aged 16 years, while the petitioner is aged 18 years. The statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C was recorded wherein she has fully supported the case of the prosecution. After investigation, the charge sheet is filed. The prosecution has cited 22 witnesses. It is stated that CW1 being the informant, CW2-the victim, CWs.3 and 4 being the brother and sister of victim are the material witnesses to be examined on behalf of the prosecution.

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:23557 CRL.P No. 79 of 2024

¶34

Learned High Court Government Pleader for

¶35

respondent No.1-State submits that the petitioner is the permanent resident of Orissa and therefore he may not be enlarged on bail at this stage and also undertakes to examine the material witnesses before the trial Court immediately as the charge is already framed by the trial Court.

¶36

The petitioner being the permanent resident of Orissa securing his presence before the trial Court, if he is enlarged on bail, will be a difficult task. Therefore, I am of the opinion that liberty may be reserved to the petitioner to renew his prayer after examination of the material witnesses.

¶37

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

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The petition is dismissed.

¶40

Liberty is reserved with the petitioner to move the trial Court for grant of bail after examination of the material witnesses.

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:23557 CRL.P No. 79 of 2024

¶42

¶43

The trial Court is directed to examine the material witnesses expeditiously, at least within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, as the accused

¶44

who is aged 18 years, is in judicial custody.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Mohan Maaji v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Maaji 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

Sri Javaraiah Vs State of Karnataka

Narasimhamurthy B G Vs State by

Manoj Kumar R Vs State of Karnataka

Ramesh Naika N T Vs State of Karnataka

Yallappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjula Vs State by Bellur Police