Allowed

Somashekar @ Prashanth v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2024CRL.P/8778/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the bail petition filed by an accused charged with offences under IPC and POCSO Act. Granting bail considering severe delay in trial due to the missing victim witness, the court held further detention serves no useful purpose. Bail was granted on security of Rs. 2,00,000 with sureties and restrictions on tampering.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on obtaining a bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions against committing offences and tampering with witnesses.

Somashekar @ Prashanth Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37471 CRL.P No. 8778 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8778 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SOMASHEKAR @ PRASHANTH S/O BASAVARAJU (BASASETTY) AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT KONNA SAGARA VILLAGE, VAJRABANDI POST, YALABURGA TALUK KOPPAL DISTRICT - 583 231

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka

¶11

(BY SRI. SHARATH J.M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMANAGARA WOMEN POLICE STATION REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU - 560 001

¶14

VICTIM GIRL REPTD BY FATHER SRI GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT MAJOR R/AT KAISOPPINA BEEDI RAMANAGARA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159 (RESPONDENT NO.2 AGE NOT KNOWN, SINCE AGE IS NOT MENTIONED IN ANY CHARGE SHEET DOCUMENTS)

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:37471 CRL.P No. 8778 of 2024

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO RELEASED HIM ON BAIL WHO IS ACCUSED IN CR.NO.08/2022 (SPL.C.C.NO.101/2022) ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENT RAMANGARA WOMEN POLICE STATION, NOW PENDING ON I ADDL DIST. AND SESSIONS AT RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 363, 344, 376(2)(N) AND 376(3) OF IPC AND U/S 6 OF THE POCSO ACT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER.

¶19

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.8/2022 of Ramanagara Police Station, pending in Spl.C.C.No.101/2022 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Court, Ramanagara, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 344, 376(2)(n) and 376 (3) of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Victim Girl.

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37471 CRL.P No. 8778 of 2024

¶24

Heard Sri. Sharath J.M, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. N Anitha Girish, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. 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

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶27

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

¶28

R E A S O N S

¶29

The petitioner being the sole accused is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 20.06.2022 and since then, he is in judicial custody. It is alleged that the petitioner had induced the minor girl, kidnapped her, kept her away for about 6 months and committed sexual assault repeatedly, under the guise of marrying her. The statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.PC was recorded, wherein she has

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37471 CRL.P No. 8778 of 2024

¶31

reiterated the allegations made against the petitioner. Investigation was undertaken and the charge sheet is filed. The medical report supports the contention of the prosecution. Since serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offence, his earlier petition Crl.P.No.11295/2022 came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2023.

¶32

Now the petitioner has again approached this Court to contend that the charge was framed by the Trial court on 16.03.2023. On 24.07.2023 one of the mahazar witnesses was examined as PW-1. Even though the prosecution has cited as many as 39 witness, none of the other witnesses have been examined till date.

¶33

Learned counsel also submits that on 19.04.2024, the Director of the Ashram where the victim - CW-1 was housed had lodged the missing complaint stating that the victim girl is found missing along with other minor girls. Therefore, it is his contention that completion of the trial may

¶34

not be possible in near future and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for bail. These facts are not disputed by learned High

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37471 CRL.P No. 8778 of 2024

¶36

Court Government Pleader, but on the other hand she admits that there is delay in examining the witnesses, since CW-1 is found missing. Under such circumstances, detention of the petitioner in custody for indefinite period without any progress that is being made, would amount to infringement of his right to life and liberty. No useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in the custody. Hence, 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.

¶37

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

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The petition is allowed.

¶40

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.8/2022 of Ramanagara Police Station, pending in Spl.C.C.No.101/2022 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Court, Ramanagar, 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:

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37471 CRL.P No. 8778 of 2024

¶42

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶48

SPV List No.: 3 Sl No.: 8

Somashekar @ Prashanth v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somashekar @ Prashanth 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

Mrs Komala S P Vs Mrs Asha L @ Asha Chethan Kumar

Subramanya Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Umesh Chikkamagaluru Puttaswamy Gowda Vs State by Sadashivanagar

Abubakar Qureshi Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahesh H N Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Prakasha S Vs the State by Cubbon Park