Allowed

Sri Devaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2024CRL.P/8541/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused under Sections 376(2)(n) & 376(3) IPC and Sections 4(2), 5(L), 6 POCSO Act sought regular bail after the trial court rejected his application. Noting the victim's Section 164 statement alleged only inappropriate touching, not penetrative sexual assault; accused had no criminal antecedents and was in custody since March 2024. Bail granted with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions on appearance, non-tampering, and travel restrictions.

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

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:41321 CRL.P No. 8541 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8541 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI DEVARAJU, S/O CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT MANGADAHALLI VILLAGE, VIRUPAKSHIPUIRA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 138. (ACCUSED IN JC)

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SURESH CHOTTEYANDA.S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, Digitally signed STATE BY RAMANAGARA WOMEN POLICE STATION, by KAVYA R REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT STATE PUBLIC Location: High Court of PROSECUTOR, KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING, Karnataka BANGALORE, KARNATAKA - 01.

¶13

XXX XXX,

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. M.DIWAKAR MADDUR., HCGP FOR R1;

¶16

VIDE ORDER DATED 20.09.2024 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT ;)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:41321 CRL.P No. 8541 of 2024

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.32/2024 UNDER SPL.C. (POCSO) NO.70/2024 OF RAMANAGARA WOMAN POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376(2)(n), 376(3) OF IPC AND 4(2), 5(L), 6 OF POCSO ACT, 2012, PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE IST ADDL. DIST. AND SESSION JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE AT RAMANAGARA ON TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Accused in Spl.Case (POCSO)No.70/2024 pending before the Court of I Addl. District & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Ramanagara, arising out of Crime No.32/2024 registered by Ramanagara Women Police Station, Ramanagara District for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) & 376(3) of IPC and Sections 4(2), 5(L) & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short 'POCSO Act') is before this Court under section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶24

learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2, who

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:41321 CRL.P No. 8541 of 2024

¶26

is served in the matter, has remained unrepresented before this Court.

¶27

FIR in Crime No.32/2024 was registered by Ramanagara Women Police Station, Ramanagara District against the petitioner herein for the aforesaid offences, on the basis of the first information dated 11.03.2024 received from respondent No.2, who is the mother of the victim girl aged about 15 years.

¶28

During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested and produced before the Jurisdictional Court on 11.03.2024. Investigation in the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed against him for the aforesaid offences. Bail application filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.550/2024 was rejected on 10.07.2024. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶29

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶30

petitioner and the victim girl are acquainted to each other.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:41321 CRL.P No. 8541 of 2024

¶33

Petitioner is an agriculturist, who has no criminal antecedents. The victim girl has not made any allegations of penetrative sexual assault on her by the petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, he prays to allow this petition.

¶34

Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. He submits that victim is a minor and therefore, the alleged offences get attracted against the petitioner. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss this petition.

¶35

Perusal of the material available on record

¶36

would to go show that petitioner and the victim girl hail from the same village and they are acquainted to each other. The victim girl was staying in the girl's hostel and attending her school. On 10.03.2024, petitioner allegedly had visited the hostel in which the victim girl stayed and had taken the victim girl along with him in his motor bike, on the guise of providing her snacks. He allegedly took her

¶37

to Kengal Anjaneyaswamy Temple and thereafter to a

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:41321 CRL.P No. 8541 of 2024

¶39

mango grove and had sexually assaulted her there against

¶40

her wishes and thereafter had left her in the hostel.

¶41

Perusal of the averments, in the first information would go to show that the petitioner had accompanied the parents of the victim girl to the police station on 11.03.2024, and thereafter, FIR was registered against him. The statement of the victim girl under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., was recorded by the Jurisdictional Magistrate on 13.03.2024. The victim girl in her statement before the Jurisdictional Magistrate has stated that petitioner had taken her along with him in his motor bike to the Mango grove and had touched her body inappropriately and had tortured her. She has not made any allegations of penetrative sexual assault on her by the petitioner as found in the first information. Petitioner, who has no criminal antecedents, is in custody from 11.03.2024. He is an agriculturist by avocation. The case

¶42

before the Trial Court is still at the stage of framing charge. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:41321 CRL.P No. 8541 of 2024

¶44

the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail is required to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly, the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The petition is allowed .

¶47

The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Spl.Case (POCSO)No.70/2024 pending before the Court of I Addl. District & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Ramanagara, arising out of Crime No.32/2024 registered by Ramanagara Women Police Station, Ramanagara District for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) & 376(3) of IPC and Sections 4(2), 5(L) & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short 'POCSO Act'), subject to the following conditions:

¶48

a) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:41321 CRL.P No. 8541 of 2024

¶51

b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶52

c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶53

d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶54

e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶57

KVR

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Sri Devaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Devaraju 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

Naveen Kumar @ Naveen Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Sumanth v.Appu Vs the State of Karnataka

Narendra R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Rajanna, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Pratap. Ha. Byalyal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sameer Pasha @ Sameer Vs the State of Karnataka