Allowed

Manukumar B v. Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2024CRL.P/8769/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under IPC, POCSO Act and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act arising from a relationship with a 17-year-old. Charge-sheet filed; co-accused already on bail; no criminal antecedents or need for detention. Bail granted on bond with two sureties and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on a Rs.2,00,000 bond with two sureties, subject to conditions; IO to verify sureties' documents/address within 5 days.

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:38832 CRL.P No. 8769 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8769 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MANUKUMAR B.V. S/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT BEERUVALLI GRAMA, AKKEBALA HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK, MANDYA - 571 426.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. SHIVAMMA D., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GOVINDARAJANAGAR P.S. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶15

SMT. PREMA A.M., C/O JAYARAM B.K., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT #8, 2^ND CROSS, SANJEEVINAGAR, TENT ROAD, MUDALAPALYA, BANGALORE – 560072.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38832 CRL.P No. 8769 of 2024

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 (FILED UNDER SECTION 483 BNNS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER OF BAIL ENLARGING THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.70/2024 OF GOVINDARAJANAGAR POLICE, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU, FTSC-V, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363, 376 OF IPC, UNDER SECTIONS 4 AND 8 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTIONS 9 AND 10 OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner being accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.70/2024 of Govindaraja Nagar Police Station, pending on the file of the learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-V, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of IPC, Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’ for short) and Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant – Smt. Prema A.M.

¶24

Heard Smt. Shivamma D, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.P. Yashodha, the learned High Court

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38832 CRL.P No. 8769 of 2024

¶26

Government 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

¶29

bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶30

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶31

R E A S O N S

¶32

The petitioner being accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 28.02.2024 and since then, he is in judicial custody. The mother of the victim girl lodged the complaint alleging that her daughter was a minor and she was found missing. After registering the FIR, investigation was undertaken. Now, the charge-sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 6 for the above said offences. As per the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer, the victim girl arrayed as C.W.2 in the charge-sheet, aged 17 years and accused No.1 being 24 years of age, were in love with one another. On 25.02.2024, the victim voluntarily came out of the

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:38832 CRL.P No. 8769 of 2024

¶35

house as she was afraid that her father will come to know about their relationship. Later, the accused took the victim girl and married her on 26.02.2024 with the help of accused Nos.2 to 6. The victim was rescued and the petitioner was taken to custody.

¶36

The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C is produced by the learned High Court Government Pleader for perusal of the Court. The victim has stated before the learned Magistrate that she was afraid of her father and therefore voluntarily left her house and went with the accused. They stayed in his relative’s house and got married on 26.02.2024. Later they returned to their house on 28.02.2024 and the petitioner was apprehended.

¶37

It is stated that accused Nos.2 to 6 are already enlarged on bail. Admittedly, the petitioner is not required to be detained in custody for any purpose except to ensure his presence before the Trial Court during trial. He is not having any criminal antecedents. Considering the age of the petitioner, if he is detained in custody, it may bring him in contact with hard core criminals, which will not be in the best interest of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:38832 CRL.P No. 8769 of 2024

¶39

¶40

the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail, subject to condition,

¶41

which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

¶42

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶43

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The petition is allowed.

¶46

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.70/2024 of Govindaraja Nagar 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:

¶47

a) The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

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.

¶51

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

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:38832 CRL.P No. 8769 of 2024

¶54

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.

¶55

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶56

MD List No.: 3 Sl No.: 9

Manukumar B v. Vs State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manukumar B 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

Mr K Murali Vs Mr Nageshwara Rao M

R P Ravishankar Vs M v Shankar

The State of Karnataka Vs Naveen Krishna

Sri. Ismyal @ Mohammad Ismayil Vs State by Karnataka

Sri Raghavendra C M Vs the State of Karnataka

Madhusudan Alias Madhu Alias Ondaragannu Vs State by Udayagiri Police