Allowed

Prasanna R v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2024CRL.P/9063/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition for anticipatory bail where the petitioner, accused of sexual offences and child marriage, alleged the victim was a major and his wife. Relying on the victim's mother's affidavit confirming the marriage after majority and the need to care for a newborn, bail was granted with conditions to cooperate with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions: appear before IO within 15 days, execute personal bond, cooperate with investigation, and not tamper with witnesses.

Prasanna R Vs the State of Karnataka by — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:43172 CRL.P No. 9063 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9063 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

PRASANNA R S/O. RANGAPPA (IN THE CHARGE SHEET PETITIONERS NAME IS MENTIONED AS PRASANNA S/O RANGAPPA AND AGE IS MENTIONED AS 23 YEARS) AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURIST R/O. SANNAYANAHATTI NARAYANAGONDANAHALLI CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI P.B. UMESH, ADV., FOR SRI R.B. DESHPANDE, ADV)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HOLALKERE POLICE STATION, HOLALKERE CIRCLE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 526 (REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560 001)

¶15

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI CHANNAPPA EERAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 H/S V/O DTD:20.09.2024; SRI HARISH B.S, ADV., FOR R-3)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:43172 CRL.P No. 9063 of 2024

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.PC (FILED U/S 482 BNNS) PRAYING TO DIRECT THE CONCERNED POLICE OF HOLALKERE P.S CHITRADURGA DISTRICT TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.369/2023 OF HOLALKERE P.S CHITRADURGA DISTRICT (CHARGE SHEETED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376(2)(n) OF IPC, SEC.4,6 OF POCSO ACT AND SEC.9 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA IN SPL.C(POCSO) NO.69/2024.

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Accused in Spl.C.No.(POCSO) No.69/2024 pending before the Court of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga District arising out of Crime No.369/2023 registered by Holalkere Police Station, Chitradurga District for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC, Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 & Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2016 is before this Court seeking regular bail.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:43172 CRL.P No. 9063 of 2024

¶26

FIR in Crime No.369/2023 was registered by Holalkere Police Station, Chitradurga District against the petitioner herein for the aforesaid offences, on the basis of first information dated 21.11.2023 received from Child Development Officer of Holalkere Taluk. Apprehending arrest in the said case, the petitioner had filed Crl.Misc.No.927/2024 before the Trial Court which was rejected on 09.08.2024. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the victim girl are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized, after the victim had attained the age of majority. By mistaken notion, after verification of the date of birth as mentioned in the Adhar card of the victim, the CDO had approached the police. He submits that the victim girl has given birth to a child and the petitioner being the father of the child is required to be take care of newly born child and its mother. Investigation in the case is complete and charge sheet has been filed.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:43172 CRL.P No. 9063 of 2024

¶30

Therefore, the petitioner's custody is not required. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶31

Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the bail petition on the ground that the petitioner has not cooperated for the purpose of investigation. Therefore, his prayer is required to be rejected.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondent No.3, who has filed affidavit on behalf of respondent No.3 submits that he has no objection to allow the petition.

¶33

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the petitioner and the victim girl were in love. The victim girl had lost her father and her mother is suffering from some ailments. The victim girl had informed the petitioner about her family background and the petitioner had come forward to marry her. Therefore, the marriage of the victim girl with the petitioner was performed on 22.12.2022 and thereafter they lived together as husband and wife. It appears that after the victim girl got pregnant, she had gone to the Govt.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:43172 CRL.P No. 9063 of 2024

¶35

Hospital for her medical checkup and on verification of her age, the CDO had approached the police and submitted a report, based on which FIR in Crime No.369/2023 was registered against the petitioner.

¶36

Respondent No.3 who is the mother of the victim girl has filed an affidavit before this Court. In paragraph No.3 to 5 of the affidavit it is stated as follows:

¶37

"3. That my daughter Nivedita has studied upto SSLc and staying int eh house by doing household work and coolie work. In the month of December 2022 she married on Prasanna S/o Rangappa who belongs to our community and their marriage is a love marriage. I submit that on the date of marriage my daughter is a major and had attained majority. Since my two sons are studying and also I was not keeping well, my daughter and her husband are staying in my house only and my son-in-law (Prasanna) is taking care of welfare of our family by doing agricultural work.

¶38

4. It is submitted that when the couple are staying in the house and when my daughter became pregnant out of wed-lock and gave birth to baby boy, some persons/officials of Child welfare department after verifying the Adhar card of my daughter came to conclusion that their marriage is

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:43172 CRL.P No. 9063 of 2024

¶41

a child marriage and requested the police to register a case and hence the above case.

¶42

5. It is submitted that my daughter was not minor at the date a marriage as per my consciousness. Being her mother I submit that couple led marital life and my daughter became a mother of a child. Police have falsely registered a case against her for the alleged offence. Now no body is there in the house to look after the family welfare as my son-in-law is gone out because of apprehension of arrest in the said case. Under these circumstances I pray this Hon'ble Court to grant him bail and rescue my family from the hands of police."

¶43

9. For the purpose of invoking the offences

¶44

punishable under the provision of POCSO Act, the prosecution is primarily required to prove that the victim girl was a minor as on the alleged date of incident. In the

¶45

present case though it is averred in the first information that after verification of the victim girl's age since it found that she was a minor, the first informant had approached the police. Respondent No.3, who is the mother of the victim girl has filed affidavit stating that the victim girl was

¶46

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:43172 CRL.P No. 9063 of 2024

¶47

major as on the date her marriage. Undisputedly, the victim girl has now given birth to a child. The petitioner being the father of the child is not only required to take care of newly born child and its mother but also other members of the family since the victim girl has already lost her father.

¶48

Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that by imposing appropriate conditions, the petitioners' prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is required to be answered affirmatively.

¶49

Accordingly, the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶52

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 Spl.C.No.(POCSO) No.69/2024 pending before the Court of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga District arising out of Crime

¶53

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:43172 CRL.P No. 9063 of 2024

¶54

No.369/2023 registered by Holalkere Police Station, Chitradurga District for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC, Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 & Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2016 subject to the following conditions:

¶55

The petitioner shall appear before

¶56

the Investigating Officer in the present case within fifteen days from the date of this order and execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer/jurisdictional Court.

¶57

The petitioner shall regularly appear

¶58

before the Trial Court without fail unless exempted by the Trial Court for valid reasons.

¶59

The petitioner shall not tamper with

¶60

the prosecution witness and he shall co-operate

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:43172 CRL.P No. 9063 of 2024

¶63

with the Police for investigation and appear

¶64

before them whenever called upon.

¶65

The petitioner shall not involve in

¶66

similar offences in future.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶69

JUDGE

¶70

NMS

Prasanna R v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanna R v. the State of Karnataka by

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

Abu Sulaiman Mandal Vs the State of Karnataka

Nitesh Ranjan Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Ravindra Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Sarim Khan @ Guddu Vs the State

Mr. G. Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

Rangaswamy. S Vs State of Karnataka