Allowed

Sri. Jeevan Kumar S v. State by Ramanagara Womens Police Station

Karnataka HC29 Oct 2024CRL.P/9366/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail sought by a 20-year-old accused charged under IPC, POCSO Act and Child Marriage Act for eloping with a 16-year-old victim. The victim's Section 164 statement made no sexual-assault allegation. The Court granted bail citing the petitioner's age, clean antecedents and prolonged custody, imposing standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in Spl.C.No.59/2024 on Rs.1,00,000 personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including regular court attendance and no witness tampering.

Sri. Jeevan Kumar S Vs State by Ramanagara… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:43546 CRL.P No. 9366 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9366 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. JEEVAN KUMAR S S/O SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS PRESENT ADDRESS R/AT 7^TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGARA, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 119. PARMANENT ADDRESS NEAR BEO OFFICE, KGMPS RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 119

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. NAGENDRA G.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

STATE BY RAMANAGARA WOMENS POLICE STATION RAMANAGARA WOMENS POLICE STATION, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BULDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

XXXXX

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R-1 R-2 - SERVED)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO RELEASE HIM ON BAIL, WHO IS ACCUSED IN SPL.C.NO.59/2024 IN

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:43546 CRL.P No. 9366 of 2024

¶19

CR.NO.16/2024, RAMANAGARA WOMEN P.S., ON THE FILE OF 1st ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT RAMANAGARA, AGAINST ACCUSED PERSON, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363, 376(2)(n), 376(3) OF IPC, UNDER SECTION 4(2), 5(L), 6 OF POCSO ACT, UNDER SECTION 9 OF PROHIBIT ION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT.

¶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 Spl.C.No.59/2024 pending before the Court of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, arising out of Crime No.16/2024 registered by Ramanagara Women Police Station, Ramanagara, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(n) & 376(3) of IPC and Sections 4(2), 5(L) & 6 of Protection of Children from sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'POCSO Act'), Section 9 of the Child Marriage Act 2006, is before this Court under section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:43546 CRL.P No. 9366 of 2024

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶26

learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2, who is served in this matter has remained unrepresented before this Court.

¶27

F.I.R. in Crime No.16/2024 was registered by Ramanagara Women Police Station, Ramanagara, initially for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC against petitioner herein, on the basis of first information dated 25.01.2024, received from respondent No.2, who is the mother of the victim girl aged about 16 years. During the course of investigation, the victim and the petitioner were traced. The petitioner herein was arrested in the present case on 01.02.2024, subsequently produced before the jurisdictional Court and remanded to judicial custody. Investigation in the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed against petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:43546 CRL.P No. 9366 of 2024

¶30

The bail application filed by the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.635/2024 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court was rejected on 19.08.2024. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is youngster, aged about 20 years, having no criminal antecedents. He is in custody for the more than 8 months. The victim girl has not made allegation against the petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and she has not given consent for the purpose of her medical examination. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶32

Per contra, learned HCGP who has opposed the bail petition, however, does not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and he submits that the victim girl is a minor therefore alleged offences get attracted against the petitioner. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:43546 CRL.P No. 9366 of 2024

¶34

Perusal of the material on record would to go

¶35

show that the first informant had approached the police on 25.01.2024 and submitted typed first information, wherein, it is stated that her minor daughter was found missing from their house on 24.01.2024 and efforts made to trace her had failed. She suspected the hand of the petitioner and therefore, FIR was initially registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC.

¶36

During the course of investigation, the petitioner and victim girl were traced together. Statement of the victim girl under Section 164 of Cr.P.C was recorded on 02.02.2024 by the jurisdictional Magistrate. In the said statement, the victim girl aged about 16 years had stated that she was tortured in her house by her parents. She was in love with a boy for the last one year and his name is Jeevan Kumar. Her parents were opposing her relationship with Jeevan Kumar. On 24.01.2024 the victim girl had met Jeevan Kumar and asked him to take her

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:43546 CRL.P No. 9366 of 2024

¶38

along with him, when he refused, she allegedly threatened to commit suicide and therefore Jeevan Kumar took her to his brother's house. However, his brother did not entertain them. Therefore they had gone to a temple at Ramanagara and got married and thereafter they traveled to Andra Pradesh to the house of the Uncle of Jeevan

¶39

Kumar and they had stayed there for 2-3 days. Police came to the said house and brought back them to their village. She has not made any allegation against the petitioner about he committing sexual assault on her. She has also not given her consent for her medical examination. She has stated that she intended to marry the petitioner after she attains the age of 18 years.

¶40

Petitioner is aged about 20 years, having no

¶41

criminal antecedents and he is in custody for the last more than 8 months. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that petitioner's prayer for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively.

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:43546 CRL.P No. 9366 of 2024

¶43

Accordingly, the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶46

The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Spl.C.No.59/2024 pending before the Court of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, arising out of Crime No.16/2024 registered by Ramanagara Women Police Station, Ramanagara, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(n) & 376(3) of IPC and Sections 4(2), 5(L) & 6 of Protection of Children from sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 9 of the Child Marriage

¶47

Act 2006, subject to the following conditions:

¶48

a) 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

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;

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:43546 CRL.P No. 9366 of 2024

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

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.

¶54

SD/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

ASN

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Sri. Jeevan Kumar S v. State by Ramanagara Womens Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Jeevan Kumar S v. State by Ramanagara Womens Police Station

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

Dharmasingh Khatari Vs State by Kadugodi P S

Sri. Manjunath v Vs the State of Karnataka

Dharmasingh Khatri Vs State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Sri Arun Kumar C.

Sri Ramesh G K Vs State of Karnataka

Mahesha Vs the State of Karnataka