Allowed

Venkatesh v. State by Ramanagara Women Ps

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2024CRL.P/9457/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail petition filed by the petitioner accused of offences under IPC and POCSO. Finding that the victim voluntarily left her parents and the age was disputed, the court enlarged the petitioner on bail subject to conditions while the trial proceeds to prove age.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was enlarged on bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties, regular appearance to the trial court, and conditions against tampering or leaving the jurisdiction.

Venkatesh Vs State by Ramanagara Women Ps — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:44129 CRL.P No. 9457 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9457 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VENKATESH, S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT: WARD NO.21, KOTHIPURA, IRULIGARA COLONY, RAMANAGARA TOWN - 571 511.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VINOD N.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

STATE BY RAMANAGARA WOMEN PS, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

KUMAR H S, S/O SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, RAMANAGARA - 571 511.

¶15

XXX XXX,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:44129 CRL.P No. 9457 of 2024

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.M.DIWAKARA MADDUR., HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI.RAMU.V., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.1 IN CR.NO.21/2024, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE 1st ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE RAMANAGARA REGISTERED BY THE RAMANAGARA WOMEN P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 376(2)(n), 376(3) OF IPC, SEC. 4(2), 5(L), 6 OF POCSO ACT, SEC. 9 AND 11 OF CHILD MARRIAGE RESTRAINT ACT.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Accused in Crime No.21/2024 registered by

¶25

Ramanagara Women Police Station, Ramanagara District for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3) of IPC, Sections 4(2), 5(L) & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under Sections 9 & 11 of the Prohibition of Child

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44129 CRL.P No. 9457 of 2024

¶27

Marriage Act, 2006, is before this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

FIR in Crime No.21/2024 was registered by Ramanagara Women Police Station, Ramanagara District against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences, on the basis of the first information dated 09.02.2024 received from the respondent No.2, who was working as Assistant Director, Social Welfare Department, Ramanagara.

¶30

During the Course of investigation of the case petitioner herein was arrested on 13.02.2024 and remanded to judicial custody. 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.530/2024 was rejected on 28.06.2024. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:44129 CRL.P No. 9457 of 2024

¶33

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶34

petitioner and the victim girl were in love. Victim girl had voluntarily left her parents house and thereafter married the petitioner. Victim girl is major, her age has been wrongly stated in her school records. Accordingly, he prays to allow this petition.

¶35

Learned HCGP has opposed the petition. He

¶36

submits that the marriage of the petitioner with the victim girl was performed when she was a minor and thereafter, she became pregnant. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss this petition.

¶37

First Information dated 09.02.2024 was submitted after the victim girl, who had gone to the Primary Health Centre at Mehabub Nagar, Ramanagara District, for her medical examination was found to be pregnant. On verification, the victim girl had allegedly informed that she was married to the petitioner and therefore, FIR was registered against the petitioner.

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44129 CRL.P No. 9457 of 2024

¶39

During the course of investigation of the case petitioner was arrested on 13.02.2024 and remanded to judicial custody. Investigation in the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Undisputedly, petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Statement of the victim girl under Section 164 of Cr.P.C was recorded before the Jurisdictional Magistrate Court on 13.02.2024. The victim girl aged about 17 years has stated that she was in love with the petitioner and her relationship was opposed by her parents. The sister of petitioner had approached her parents with the proposal of marriage but victim's parents had refused the same. Therefore, victim girl had left her parents house and had accompanied the petitioner to his village. Subsequently, they got married at Byadarahalli and stayed in the house of the petitioner. After, she became pregnant; she returned to her parent's house and had gone to the Primary Health Centre for medical checkup. From the Primary Health Centre, she was taken by officials of child line and thereafter, FIR was registered. The victim girl has not made any serious allegations

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:44129 CRL.P No. 9457 of 2024

¶41

against the petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C or before the Doctor who has medically examined her. The prosecution, in order to prove the age of the victim girl, has placed reliance only on the certificate issued by the school in which the victim allegedly studied up to 7^th standard. For the purpose of attracting the offences permissible under the POCSO Act, the prosecution is primarily required to prove that the victim girl was a minor as on the date of the alleged crime and this aspect of the matter is required to be proved by the prosecution during the course of trial.

¶42

At this stage, the perusal of the material would go to show that marriage of the petitioner with the victim was performed after the victim girl had voluntarily left her parents house. Undisputedly, petitioner has no criminal antecedents and is in custody from 13.02.2024. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:44129 CRL.P No. 9457 of 2024

¶45

grant of regular bail is required to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly, the following:-

¶46

ORDER

¶47

The petition is allowed .

¶48

The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.21/2024 registered by Ramanagara Women Police Station, Ramanagara District for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3) of IPC, Sections 4(2), 5(L) & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under Sections 9 & 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, subject to the following conditions:

¶49

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;

¶50

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;

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:44129 CRL.P No. 9457 of 2024

¶52

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

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.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶58

KVR

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Venkatesh v. State by Ramanagara Women Ps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatesh v. State by Ramanagara Women Ps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipti K Simha Vs the State

Ananda R N Vs State of Karnataka

Rangaswamy Vs State by Kengeri Police

Abdul Rauf Vs the State of Karnataka

Sahibul Ansari @ Maggi Vs the State of Karnataka by

Abhishek D T Vs State of Karnataka