Karnataka High Court
Sri Ravi vs State Of Anekal Police Station on 5 August, 2020
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3287 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SRI RAVI
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
S/O. LAKSHMAIAH,
RESIDING AT LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE,
THAMMANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 106.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MUNISWAMY GOWDA S.G., ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF ANEKAL POLICE STATION
ANEKAL,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 106,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI THEJESH, H.C.G.P.)
***
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CRIME NO.80 OF 2020 REGISTERED BY ANEKAL POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 366A, 323 AND 506 OF THE IPC AND SECTIONS 9, 10
AND 11 OF THE POCSO ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for granting bail in Crime No.80 of 2020 registered by Anekal Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 323, 506 and 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'), Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'the POCSO Act') and also Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3
3. The case of the prosecution is that, on the complaint of one Parvathamma, the mother of the victim, the Police registered a case on 21-5-2020. It is alleged by the complainant that her daughter-victim, aged 17 years, 6 months and 8 days studying in I P.U.C., that on 18-5-2020 at 6:30 a.m., when her daughter was cleaning front yard of the house, the petitioner along with one Sunil came near the house and abducted her daughter in two- wheeler vehicle. When her brother tried to stop, the petitioner assaulted him and threatened to do away the life. Thereafter, she tried to trace out her daughter and later, came to know that the petitioner had abducted her daughter and married her even though she was minor.
4. After registering a case, the Police arrested the petitioner and rescued the victim girl. They were subjected to medical examination. The petitioner has 4 been remanded to judicial custody and thereafter, he has approached the Additional Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, by filing a bail petition, which came to be rejected on 10-6-2020. Hence, this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner and the victim are relatives. Petitioner stayed in the house of the complainant and after knowing that both the petitioner and victim were loving each other, the petitioner has been sent out from the house. The complaint came to be lodged on 21-5-2020 even though the alleged offences had taken place on 18-5-2020. There is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. The victim herself joined with the petitioner. There is no act of abduction or kidnap by the petitioner. The statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has already been recorded. Investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. Therefore, the presence of 5 the petitioner is no more required for any purpose of interrogation, except for trial. Due to the spread of COVID-19, the trial is going to delay and judicial custody of the petitioner will not serve any purpose. He is ready to abide by any condition. Hence, he prays for granting bail.
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the bail petition and contended that there is a prima-facie case made out against the petitioner for having committed the offences and even if the victim has given any consent, it is immaterial as she is minor in age. Petitioner and the victim have already got married. Petitioner shall not be released until examining the victim before the trial Court and if he is released on bail, he may threaten the prosecution witnesses and there is likelihood of him absconding from the case. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
6
7. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the record, it reveals that on the complaint of the mother of the victim, the case came to be registered against the petitioner and other six accused persons under the column of the IPC, Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and POCSO Act. Statement of the victim has been recorded by the Magistrate on 1-7-2020, wherein she has stated that the petitioner is her relative and both were loving each other. Thereafter, her parents sent out the petitioner from the house, but they were in contact through mobile phone and the same was objected by her parents. Then, on 18-5-2020, she herself called the petitioner to come near her house. Accordingly, he came and picked her up. Thereafter, they went to temple, married each other and had cohabited. After coming to know about the lodging of the complaint, both of them came to the Police Station and surrendered themselves before the Police. 7
8. On perusal of the entire charge-sheet material, looking to the relationship between the petitioner and the victim, considering the age of the victim, by looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I feel it is a fit case for granting bail to the petitioner as none of the offences is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. If bail is granted by imposing certain conditions, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER Petition is allowed.
Petitioner-accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No. 80 of 2020 registered by Anekal Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 323, 506 and 376 read with Section 34 of the IPC, 8 Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act and also Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;
ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses directly or
indirectly and
iii) The petitioner shall not leave the
jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court.
SD/-
JUDGE kvk