Manjunath S/O Maruti Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 (SECTION 483 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023), PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED BY GRANTING REGULAR BAIL IN SPL.S.C. POCSO NO.23/2025, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, F.T.S.C.-I, AT KOPPAL (CRIME NO.34/2025 OF HANUMASAGAR POLICE STATION, KOPPAL DISTRICT), REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 137(2), 65(1), 64(2)(M) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023, SECTION 4(2), 5(L) READ WITH SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT, 2012 AND SECTION 3(1)(W) AND 3(2)(V) OF THE SCHEDULE CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH)

¶28

The petitioner, who is the sole accused in Crime No.34/2025 of respondent police, pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Koppal, in Spl. S.C. POCSO No.23/2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 137(2), 65(1), 64(2)(m) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 4(2), 5(l) read with section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, Section 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14994 CRL.P No. 104095 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

(Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is before this Court, seeking regular bail.

¶32

The case of the prosecution is that, respondent

¶33

No.2 filed a complaint stating that, the victim went out of the house by saying that she has to attend nature call, however, she did not return. As she did not return to the house till 10.30 p.m., the complainant along with her husband started searching for her whereabouts. As they could not get any information regarding whereabouts of the victim, they lodged a complaint before the respondent police. A case came to be registered and the respondent police started investigation. During investigation, the victim was secured by the respondent police. On enquiry, she has revealed that, the petitioner is her relative and he used to visit her residence. The petitioner came in contact with her five months ago and they started talking with each other over mobile phones and gradually they developed intimacy.

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14994 CRL.P No. 104095 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

It is further stated that the marriage talks were

¶37

going on in the house of the victim. Therefore, she informed the said facts to the petitioner and asked him to take her from the house. Accordingly, on 03.02.2025 she was taken to Tirupathi, they came back to Koppal and thereafter, the petitioner took her to Room No.4, in second floor building, which belongs to one Srinivas Gupta, situated behind Krishna Bhavan Hotel, Koppal and he is stated to have committed sexual assault on her. On the information received from the victim, the respondent police have registered a case and inserted some of the provisions stated supra. Thereafter, conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet.

¶38

Heard Sri Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Maqbool Ahmed M. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 State and perused the material placed before the Court.

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14994 CRL.P No. 104095 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the

¶42

petitioner that, though, in the complaint it is stated that she had been subjected to sexual assault by the petitioner, the statement made before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, did not disclose anything about the sexual assault. However, in the evidence, she improved her version and stated that she had been subjected to sexual assault. These statements are inconsistent with each other. Having considered the said inconsistencies, it is appropriate to grant him bail by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶43

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently submitted that, the victim was aged about 16 years as on the date of the incident. He induced her and took her to Tirupathi. Thereafter, they returned to Koppal and stayed in the house of Srinivas Gupta and there he had committed sexual assault on her. In the complaint it is

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14994 CRL.P No. 104095 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

stated that, due to some unavoidable circumstances, she might have deposed and stated before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that she had not been subjected to sexual assault, however, in the evidence, it is stated that she had been sexually assaulted by the petitioner. Now the petitioner is in Judicial Custody. In case, if, he is released on bail, there may be chances of threatening the remaining witnesses and also chances of threatening the victim. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant him bail. Making such submissions, he prays to reject the petition.

¶47

Similarly, the learned High Court Government Pleader adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and prays to reject the petition.

¶48

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective counsels of the respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge sheet and the depositions made along with the petition, without adverting

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14994 CRL.P No. 104095 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

to the merit of the case, it is appropriate to grant to bail by imposing suitable conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i) The petition is allowed .

¶54

ii) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.34/2025 of respondent police, pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Koppal, in Spl. S.C. POCSO No.23/2025, on executing his personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees) along with one surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶55

iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all hearing dates without fail.

¶56

iv) The petitioner shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14994 CRL.P No. 104095 of 2025

¶58

8 -

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

v) The petitioner shall not commit similar or any other criminal offences till disposal of the case.

¶61

In case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions enumerated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.

¶62

Sd/(S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶63

MRK CT: UMD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8

Manjunath S/O Maruti v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunath S/O Maruti v. 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

Yusuf Bilal Shaik Vs the State of Karnataka

Vaseem Alias Waseem S/O Abdul Khadar Mulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Vaseem Alias Waseem S/O Abdul Khadar Mulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Mujammil Mainuddin Sattigeri Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanumantha S/O Malleshappa Shivalingappa Savalagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Gaurav Shyamlal Mehrotra S/O Shyamlal Vs State of Karnataka