Karnataka High Court
Misslaxmi D/O Balesh Talawar vs State Of Karnataka on 8 December, 2015
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101898/2015 c/w
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101899/2015
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101898/2015
BETWEEN:
MISS. LAXMI D/O BALESH TALAWAR,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: AVATE GALLI, GOKAK,
TAL: GOKAK, DIST.: BELAGAVI.
- PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
GHATAPRABHA POLICE STATION,
NOW REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
- RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, GOVT. PLEADER)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.
249/2015 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 376(2)(I)(N), 370(2)
& 344 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC, SEC. 4 & 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SEC.
2(vi) AND 23 OF JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT (CARE & PROTECTION
OF CHILDREN ACT, 2000) & ETC.
:2:
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101898/2015
BETWEEN:
SRI. MALLIKARJUN S/O BALAPPA BHAJANTRI,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SIDDESHWAR NAGAR, GOKAK,
TAL: GOKAK, DIST.: BELAGAVI.
- PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
GHATAPRABHA POLICE STATION,
NOW REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
- RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, GOVT. PLEADER)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.
249/2015 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 376(2)(I)(N), 370(2)
& 344 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC, SEC. 4 & 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SEC.
2(vi) AND 23 OF JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT (CARE & PROTECTION
OF CHILDREN ACT, 2000) & ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:3:
ORDER
1. Since these two petitions are in respect of the same crime number and involve common question of law and facts both the petitions are taken together and disposed of by the common order.
2. Both the petitions are filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Section 376(2)(I)(n), 370(2), 344 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act in respondent Police Station Crime No. 249/2015.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are that on 25.08.2015 the complainant staff along with the respondent Police have rescued one minor girl Vidya Babu Badadavar, aged about 14 years from the house of Santosh Aralikatti. Thereafter the said girl was produced before the Child Welfare Committee, Belagavi and recorded statement of the said girl. Said girl in her statement has alleged that since from the last :4: two months the accused nos.1 to 3 are ill treating and forced her to engage in prostitution. On the basis of the said statement a complaint was lodged before the respondent Police Station and case was registered for the alleged offences. During the course of investigation the petitioners accused no.3 so also the petitioner accused no.6 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. During the course of investigation the offence u/S 2(vi) and 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act (Fair & Protection of Children Act, 2000) and Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000 were added in the said case.
4. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners in respect of both the petitions so also the arguments of the learned Govt. Pleader for the respondent-State in respect of both the petitions.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far as the petitioner-accused no.6 is concerned, absolutely there are no allegations either in the complaint or in the statement of the :5: victim girl recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Hence, submitted that, for accused no.6 is concerned, no prima facie material has been placed by the prosecution but in respect of accused no.3 Lakshmi is concerned, learned counsel submitted that, referring to the complaint averments as well as the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. he submitted that her role is in respect of the other offences except the offence u/S 376 of IPC. It is also his submission that the petitioner is a woman comes under the proviso of Sec. 437 of Cr.P.C. It is his submission that the material placed shows that she was not involved in committing the alleged offences. Hence, learned counsel submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, even the petitioner-accused no.3 may be considered for releasing her on bail.
6. Per contra learned Govt. Pleader submitted that so far as the accused no.3 is concerned, there is prima facie materials placed by the prosecution which goes to show that this accused no.3 who is responsible for taking the girl, confined her in the :6: room weeks together and sending the male persons to have sexual intercourse with the said girl. Therefore, there was a human trafficking. Learned Govt. Pleader also submitted that the victim girl is aged 14 years. Even the offences are under the provisions of POCSO Act. Looking to the seriousness of the offences, petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail and prayed to reject the bail petitions.
7. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint so also statement of the victim girl recorded u/S 164 of Cr.P.C. so also I have perused the rejection of the bail petition by the learned Sessions Judge, Belagavi in respect of both the petitioners herein.
8. As it is rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused no.6 Mallikarjun is concerned, I have carefully gone through the materials but there are no serious allegations as against the accused no.6 is about his involvement in committing the alleged offences. But, looking to the averments in the :7: complaint as well as in the statement of the victim girl recorded u/S 164 of Cr.P.C. at page no. 2 paragraph no.2 it is clearly mentioned by the victim girl that Lakshmi and Shivakka both together confined her in one room of the house of Lakshmi and they called four persons everyday for about a week continuously and through them there was sexual intercourse on the victim girl. It is also stated by the victim girl that though she made hue and cry but even then the accused Shivakka used to assault her and they ultimately left her to sleep with the persons who were coming and she has also named those persons who came and had sexual intercourse with her.
9. Looking to the averments made in the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., considering her age and the offences are even under the provisions of POCSO Act, I am of the opinion that so far as the accused no.3-Lakshmi is concerned, prosecution has placed prima facie materials and it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of her. Accordingly, the following order is passed.
:8:
ORDER Petition filed by petitioner-accused no.3-Lakshmi in Crl. P. No. 101898/2015 is rejected.
Petition filed by petitioner-accused no.6-Mallikarjun in Crl. P. No. 101899/2015 is allowed. Petitioner-accused no.6 is ordered to be released on bail of the alleged offences subject to the following conditions.
1) He shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
2) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
3) He shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE bvv