Allowed

Sri Irshak Alias Ershak B v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2024CRL.P/8285/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused in a FIR for child marriage and sexual offences sought anticipatory bail after rejection by the Sessions Court. The victim girl filed an affidavit supporting him; no allegations were made by her or her parents. Holding custodial interrogation unnecessary, the High Court granted anticipatory bail with conditions including appearance before police and trial court.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted: release on personal bond Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties within 15 days, subject to conditions of regular court attendance, no tampering, and cooperation with investigation.

Sri Irshak Alias Ershak B Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:45393 CRL.P No. 8285 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8285 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI IRSHAK ALIAS ERSHAK B S/O M SHAMSHAD @ BAKSH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT KARABALA MAIDANA CHANNAPATTANA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ROSHAN M.C., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANNAPATNA TOWN POLICE CHANNARAYAPATANA - 562 160 REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶13

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

XXXXX

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA EERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. THIRTHA PRASAD C.G., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C. (FILED UNDER SECTION 482 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE I.E. CHANNAPATNA P.S. IN THE FIR CR.NO.52/2023 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 9 AND 10 OF CHILD MARRIAGE RESTRAINT ACT UNDER SECTION 363 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 4, 5(L), 6 OF POCSO ACT PENDING BEFORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT RAMANAGARA.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:45393 CRL.P No. 8285 of 2024

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Accused in Crime No.52/2023 registered by

¶24

Channapatna Town Police Station, Ramanagara, for the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC, Sections 4, 5(L) & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'POCSO Act') and Sections 9 & 10 of

¶25

Child Marriage Restraint Act, is before this Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

FIR in crime No.52/2024 was registered by

¶28

Channapatna Town Police Station, Ramanagara, against the petitioner herein initially for the offences punishable under Sections 9 & 10 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, on

¶29

the basis of the first information dated 06.06.2023 received from Siddalingaiah, who was working as a Child Development Project Officer, Channapatana Town, Ramanagara. Apprehending arrest in the said case, the

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45393 CRL.P No. 8285 of 2024

¶31

petitioner had filed a Crl.Misc.No.368/2024 before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court which was rejected on 15.06.2024. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶33

the victim girl and her parents have not made any allegation against the petitioner. The victim is the wife of the petitioner and newly born child is the daughter of the petitioner. Petitioner’s marriage with the victim girl was solemnized after she attained age of majority and the prosecution has wrongly mentioned her age. The petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the police for the purpose of the investigation. Accordingly, prays to allow the petition.

¶34

Per contra, learned HCGP who has opposed the bail petition, submits that since the victim is a minor, alleged offences are get attracted against the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, who is the father of the victim girl, submits that the victim girl hails from poor background and there is nobody else to take

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:45393 CRL.P No. 8285 of 2024

¶37

care of the victim and her newly born child. The victim has filed an affidavit before this Court and prays that the petitioner may be granted relief as prayed in the petition.

¶38

The first information was submitted by the Child

¶39

Development Project Officer, Channapatna, after he received information that the victim girl who had gone for her medical examination to the Government Hospital was found to be pregnant by five months. First informant on receipt of such information had made an inquiry with the victim girl and thereafter had approached the police. It is not in dispute that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the victim girl and from their wedlock they have a child, which is born subsequent to the registration of FIR in the present case. The victim girl has filed an affidavit before this Court stating that she was in love with the petitioner and she left her parents house and got married with the petitioner in a Darga and thereafter she is with him in his house. She has also stated that from their wedlock she has given birth to a child and there is

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45393 CRL.P No. 8285 of 2024

¶41

nobody else to take care of her and her child. According to the petitioner, the victim girl was a major as on the date of his marriage. For the purpose of establishing the charges for the offences punishable under the provision of the POCSO Act, the prosecution is basically required to prove that the victim girl was minor as on the date of the alleged crime. For the said purpose prosecution is required to produce necessary documentary evidence to prove that the victim girl was a minor.

¶42

Undisputedly, the victim girl, her parents or her relatives have not made any allegations against the petitioner. Even in the statement made by the victim girl under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, she has not made any allegation against the petitioner about he committing any sexual assault on her against her wishes.

¶43

Petitioner has no criminal antecedents, and he is required to take care of his wife and newly born child. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstance of the

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:45393 CRL.P No. 8285 of 2024

¶45

present case, I am of the view that since custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in the present case, the petitioner’s prayer for grant of anticipatory bail needs to be answered affirmatively.

¶46

Accordingly the following.

¶47

O R D E R

¶48

The petition is allowed .

¶49

The Respondent - Police or any other police in the State of Karnataka are directed to release the petitioner in the event of his arrest in Crime No.52/2023 registered by Channapatna Town Police Station, Ramanagara, for the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC, Sections 4, 5(L) & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 9 & 10 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, subject to the following conditions:

¶50

a. The Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:45393 CRL.P No. 8285 of 2024

¶53

Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶54

b. Petitioner shall regularly appear before the Trial Court without fail unless exempted by the Trial Court for valid reasons.

¶55

c. Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and he shall co-operate with the police for investigation and appear before them whenever called upon.

¶56

d. The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future.

¶57

SD/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶58

ASN

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Sri Irshak Alias Ershak B v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Irshak Alias Ershak B 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

Muniranju M Alias Munna Vs State of Karnataka by SHO

Ankith Yadav Vs State of Karnataka

Anil Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Manoj Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Ravikumar Vs State of Karnataka

Ayub Vs State of Karnataka