Karnataka High Court
Raghavendra S/O Devendrappa Pujar vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2020
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100909 OF 2020
Between:
Raghavendra S/o.Devendrappa Pujar,
Age 24 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Basalikatti Tanda, Rq.: Ranebennur,
Dist.: Haveri.
... Petitioner
(By Shri Vijay M.Malali, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka,
Through Haveri CEN P.S.,
Rep. by SPP, High Court of
Karnataka, Bench Dharwad.
... Respondent
(By Miss Seema Shiva Naik, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. praying to grant anticipatory bail in Haveri CEN
PS Crime No.11/2020 for the offences punishable under
Section 66(C), 66(D), 66(E), 67(B) of IT Act and Section
354(C), 376, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and
Section 8, 12, 14, 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012 on the file
of the 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge & Spl. Judge,
Haveri.
:2:
This petition coming on for orders, this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
1. The petitioner-accused No.3 is before this Court seeking to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Haveri CEN P.S. Crime No.11/2020 for the offences punishable under Section 66(C), 66(D), 66(E), 67(B) of I.T. Act and Section 354(C), 376, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 8, 12, 14, 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012, pending on the file of the 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge & Spl. Judge, Haveri in Crl.Misc.No.287/2020.
2. Before getting into the merits of the matter, it is required to be observed that in the present petition the name of the minor as regards whom the offence under POCSO Act is alleged to have been committed has been named in the petition as also identifying factors to lead to identify of the minor is made. Such practice is not permitted and is deprecated. :3:
3. The case according to the prosecution is that the mother of the minor filed a complaint against accused Nos.1 to 3 stating that accused No.1 had forcibly taken photographs of her minor daughter and created Facebook account in her name on 24.05.2020, uploaded the said photographs in the said account and also forwarded the link to the friends and relatives. On coming to know about the same, the mother enquired with the minor daughter, she revealed that accused No.1 had taken her photographs forcibly. When the family members of the minor went to the house of the accused, accused Nos.2 and 3 are said to have threatened the family members of the minor with a false case of caste abuse. In the above background, the complaint came to be filed and FIR registered.
4. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are stated to have filed Crl.Misc.No.287 of 2020 before the 1st Addl. District and Sessions and Special Judge, Haveri seeking :4: anticipatory bail, which came to be partly allowed. In that anticipatory bail, in respect of accused No.2 was allowed and that in respect of accused No.3 was rejected. It is in the above background, the petitioner-accused No.3 is before this Court seeking for anticipatory bail.
5. Shri Vijay M.Malali, learned counsel for the petitioner would apologise for showing the name of the minor on record as also placing on record the identifying factors and submits that the same may be condoned and the matter be taken up for hearing.
6. He submits that the offences if any is alleged to have been committed by accused No.1. The only allegation insofar as accused No.3 is concerned is that he has threatened the family members of the minor with false case of caste abuse. It is accused No.1 who has blackmailed the minor and has also committed sexual assault on her and has also taken :5: photographs of minor. He submits that all the allegations are against accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 and 3 have not committed any overt act so as to attract the offences as alleged against them.
7. The only other allegations being that one of the initial photographs, which has been taken by accused No.3. However, the alleged offences as regards uploading of photographs in the Facebook is only against accused No.1 and on this ground he submits that accused No.3 would co-operate in all manner with the investigation and comply with any conditions that is imposed on the petitioner-accused No.3. He submits that the petition as filed may be allowed and anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner-accused No.3.
8. Per contra, Miss Seema Shiva Naik, learned HCGP for the respondent-State would submit that there are allegations insofar as accused No.3 is concerned in terms of having taken the first photograph of the :6: minor with accused No.1 when forcibly kissing the minor. Accused No.3 by taking the said photograph has encouraged the action on the part of accused No.1. If accused No.3 had advised his brother accused No.1, probably the offence would not have been committed. Hence, she submits that the petition as filed may be rejected.
9. Heard Shri Vijay M.Malali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Miss Seema Shiva Naik, learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the papers.
10. Having considered the facts on record, all overt acts alleged are against accused No.1 and the only allegation against accused No.3 being as regards he having threatened the family members with a false case of caste abuse as also having taken the photograph of accused No.1 forcibly kissing the minor. These allegations may not require custodial interrogation of accused No.3. It is stated that accused No.1, who is prime accused and against :7: whom all overt acts are alleged is in custody. Taking into consideration the above facts, I am of the considered opinion that the anticipatory bail application as filed by accused No.3 is required to be allowed by imposing stringent condition so as to allay the apprehension on the part of the learned HCGP. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
11. The anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner- accused No.3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Haveri CEN P.S. Crime No.11/2020 for the offences punishable under Section 66(C), 66(D), 66(E), 67(B) of I.T. Act and Section 354(C), 376, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 8, 12, 14, 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012 pending on the file of the 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge & Prl. & Spl. Judge, Haveri in Crl.Misc.No.287/2020, on the following conditions: :8:
(i) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial court;
(ii) The petitioner shall be regular in appearing before the Court on every date of hearing as also when called upon to do so by the trial Court;
(iii) The petitioner shall not approach or contact by himself or through anyone the minor, her family members, relatives and friends till completion of the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or cause any threat to any of the prosecution witness/s in any manner.
(v) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called and submit all documents and details as may be called upon by the Investigating Officer.
(vi) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission.:9:
(vii) In the event of violation of any of the above terms, the above bail shall stand automatically cancelled.
The observation made above is only for the purpose of consideration of the application for bail and the same shall not in any manner influence the trial. The trial Court shall dispose of the matter on merits without being influenced by this order.
SD/-
JUDGE Vnp*