Manjunath Alias Manjunath Swami S v Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6329 CRL.A No. 100172 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100172 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MANJUNATH @ MANJUNATH SWAMI S. V. S/O. LATE VENKATASWAMY, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, WARD NO. 2, NR HULIGEMMATEMPLE AT:- VITTALAPUR VILLAGE, SANDUR (TQ), BELLARY DISTRICT PIN – 583 115.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SMT. SUNITHA P. KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THORANAGAL POLICE STATION, SANDUR (TQ), BELLARY DISTRICT, REPRESENTED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.

¶13

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶14

SMT. LAXMI W/O. THIMMAPPA, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: VITTALAPUR VILLAGE, 2^ND WARD, SANDUR (TQ ), BELLARY DISTRICT, PIN CODE: 583 115.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI SABEEL AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14 A(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989 SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2025 PASSED IN SPECIAL CASE NO. 966/2024 BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-I BALLARI IN THE TORANAGAL PS CRIME NO. 128/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 137(2), 64(1) OF BNS 2023, UNDER SECTIONS 4, 6 AND 12 OF POCSO ACT AND UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(W), 3(2)(V), 3(2)(V-A) OF SC/ST ACT, BY RELEASING THE

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6329 CRL.A No. 100172 of 2025

¶19

APPELLANT IMPOSING SUITABLE CONDITIONS. TO ISSUE SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ISSUE SUCH OTHER DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by the sole accused praying to set aside the order dated 12.02.2025 passed in Spl.Case No.966/2024 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-I, Ballari, whereunder the bail application of the appellant/accused sought in respect of Toranagal Police Station in Crime No.128/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 64(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 6 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, came to be rejected.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6329 CRL.A No. 100172 of 2025

¶26

The case of the prosecution is that, on

¶27

28.07.2024 when the victim girl CW.10 was in her house

¶28

alone along with her two younger sisters, at that time, at about 11:30 pm, the accused came inside the house and the accused had sexual intercourse with her. On the next day i.e., on 29.07.2024, CW.1 and 11, who are the parents of the victim girl, came back to the village and the villagers told them to advise their daughter and they advised the victim girl and therefore, the victim girl went on terrace and spent night and on 30.07.2024 at about

¶29

5:00am, when she was going to attend second call of nature, at that time, the accused was coming on bike and he stopped the bike on seeing the victim girl. At that

¶30

time, the victim girl told him that her parents came to know about their love affair and therefore, the accused took her on his motorcycle to different places and on coming to know of the registration of a complaint, he brought her back on 01.08.2024 and left her in the village. Charge-sheet has been filed for the aforesaid offences against the appellant/accused. The appellant/accused has

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6329 CRL.A No. 100172 of 2025

¶32

been arrested and he is in judicial custody. The appellant/accused filed bail application and the same came to be rejected by the impugned order, which is challenged in this appeal.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that even though the victim girl has completed 10^th standard, her 10^th standard marks card is not produced to show her date of birth. The Doctor, who examined the victim girl, has not given any opinion with regard to any sexual act on the victim girl. The doctor noted the history given by the victim wherein it is noted that, on the willingness of the victim, the accused had sexual intercourse with her. As charge-sheet is filed, the accused is not required for any custodial interrogation. With these, she prayed for allowing the appeal and grant of bail to the appellant/accused.

¶34

Learned High Court Government Pleader for

¶35

respondent No.1/State would contend that, the date of birth of the victim girl is 06.03.2008 and she was a child

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6329 CRL.A No. 100172 of 2025

¶38

as on the date of the offence. The consent of the victim girl is not a consent, as she is a child. The bike used by the accused has been seized under mahazar. The chargesheet material show prima facie case against the appellant/accused for the offences alleged against him. With these, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶39

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend that, the offences alleged against the appellant/accused is a heinous offence of kidnapping the victim girl and having forcible sexual intercourse with her. There is an eyewitness to the incident. Considering the said aspect, the learned Special Judge has rightly rejected the bail application of the appellant by the impugned order. With these, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel, the Court has perused the charge-sheet material and the impugned order.

¶41

6 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6329 CRL.A No. 100172 of 2025

¶43

The charge-sheet material show that, the victim

¶44

girl and the accused are having love affair. The Doctor noted the history given by the victim wherein the victim has stated regarding their love affair and she with consent had sexual intercourse with the accused. The school certificate indicate that the victim girl is aged more than 16 years. The victim girl is of the age of understanding the consequences of her acts. As charge-sheet is filed, the appellant/accused is not required for custodial interrogation. The appellant/accused has made out

¶45

grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of bail with conditions.

¶46

In the result, the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.02.2025 passed in Special Case No.966/2024 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Ballari, is set aside. The appellant/accused is granted bail

¶49

7 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6329 CRL.A No. 100172 of 2025

¶51

in Crime No.128/2024 of Thoranagal Police Station pending in Special Case No.966/2024 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Ballari, subject to the following conditions:

¶52

i. The appellant/accused shall 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 trial Court.

¶53

ii. The appellant/accused shall not tamper and threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶54

iii. The appellant/accused shall appear before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶55

The operative portion of the judgment is already communicated.

¶56

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶57

Kmv CT-ASC

Manjunath Alias Manjunath Swami S v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunath Alias Manjunath Swami S v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Shekharappa Shrigiri S/O Kalakappa Shrigiri Vs the State of Karnataka

Solomoonraj S/O Saimon Yamarti Vs the State of Karnataka

Mangala Shrikanth Sogi Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Sana S/O Ganesh Marathi Vs Sri Ujwal S/O Prakash Kakkerikar

Shri. Vishal S/O. Suresh Natekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Mudakappa S/O Andappa Hadapada Vs the State of Karnataka