Karnataka High Court
Yenkappa @ Venkatesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 November, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.201511/2021
BETWEEN:
YENKAPPA @ VENKATESH
S/O MANAPPA AMMAPUR
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O SIDDAPUR
TQ. SHORAPUR, DIST. YADGIR
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ISHWAR RAJ S. CHOWDAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH YADRAMI P.S.,
REP. BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585 107
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO RELEASE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.48/2021 OF YADRAMI
POLICE STATION DIST. KALABURAGI, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 366(A), 376(2)(N), 509, 344,
109 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 4, 6, 17 OF POCSO ACT
PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
KALABURAGI.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the accused to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.48/2021 of Yedrami Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 366(a), 376(2)(n), 509, 344, 109 read with section 34 of IPC and under sections 4, 6, 17 of POCSO Act pending before the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi.
2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the victim girl is aged about 16 years and pursuing her S.S.L.C. and she was taken by this petitioner and kept her in a room for a period of one month and continued sexual act. Both of them have been apprehended by the police. Hence, the father of the complainant has lodged the complaint and a 3 case has been registered. The police have investigated the matter and filed the chargesheet for the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 376(2)(n), 344, 509 read with section 34 of IPC. The present petitioner is the accused No.1 who subjected the victim girl to the sexual act.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that she is aged about 16 years and 5 months and she can take decision with regard to consequences of having the sexual act. She has voluntarily went with the accused and stayed for a period of one month. The Court has to take note of this aspect. The learned counsel would also submit that due to fear she gave the statement before the Court and the petitioner has been in custody from 24.05.2021 and hence, he may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the victim girl is aged about 16 years and pursuing SSLC and she was subjected to sexual act. She has given 4 statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate wherein she has stated that she was subjected to sexual act. The medical report also confirms that she was subjected to sexual act. Hence, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and on perusal of the material on record, it would that the victim is aged about 16 years and she was subjected to sexual act. The medical evidence prima facie discloses that she was subjected to sexual act. When such being the case, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the victim is aged about 16 years and 3 months. The special enactment was brought into with an object to protect the children below the age of 18 years. As per Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, if the girl is aged below 18 years, she is 5 minor and though she gives consent, it is not a consent in the eye of law. It is also to be seen that Section 375 of IPC is also amended, the earlier age 15 is substituted as 18 in the Amendment. When such being the case, the Court has to see the very object of bringing the special enactment and Amendment. Hence, I find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to release the petitioner on bail.
7. In view of the observations made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE VNR/NB*