Karnataka High Court
Sunil S/O Srinivas Bhovi vs The State on 18 December, 2020
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200961/2020
BETWEEN:
SUNIL,
S/O.SRINIVAS BHOVI,
AGED : 21 YEARS,
OCC : AUTO DRIVER,
R/O. POLAKPALLY VILLAGE,
TQ.CHINCHOLI,
KALABURGI (JC)
SINCE 02.06.2020 - 585 101
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. ARUNA P. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE THROUGH CHINCHOLI PS.,
CHITTAPURE TQ.,
DIST KALABURGI,
NOW ADDL. SPP,
HC BUILDING,
KALABURGI - 585 102
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
RELEASE THE ABOVE SAID PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
2
CRIME NO.73/2020 OF CHINCHOLI POLICE STATION,
KALABURAGI, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 363, 366(A), 343, 376(2)(n), OF IPC AND
SECTIONS 4 & 6 OF POCSO ACT, 2012, PENDING BEFORE
THE II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KALABURAGI.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge him on bail.
2. This is a successive bail application filed by the petitioner for the second time. In Criminal Petition No.200542/2020, this court by an order dated 16.09.2020 has passed an order acting on the memo filed by the petitioner, that the petition was dismissed as withdrawn, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file another petition. Therefore, for the second time, the petitioner has filed second bail petition. 3
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim-complaint is a minor girl aged 16 years and the petitioner were meeting frequently and talking and having close intimacy and developed love between them. It is further stated that the petitioner had proposed to marry the victim. But that would not materialize because of the parents of the victim refused to perform marriage. That on 23.05.2020, both the complainant and the victim went to Chitaguppa, Bidar District. Later, the victim had lodged a complaint before the Police under Section-363, 366(A), 343, 376(2)(n), of IPC and Sections-4 and 6 of POCSO Act.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is false one. That the petitioner and the victim were loving each other for the past two years. Before the date of lodging of the complaint, both had close intimacy and decided to marry and because of interference of their parents 4 their marriage was not performed. Therefore, submitted that the victim-complainant under threat and coercion had lodged police complaint, due to which the petitioner is in jail for past five month. Therefore, when this being the fact, there is no offence attracted under the POSCO Act and also offence under IPC.
5. Further, submitted that now both the victim and the complainant have decided to solemnize their marriage on the assurance of both parents, when the petitioner was released on interim bail. Therefore, an affidavit is filed by the victim, wherein the victim has deposed that she is 19 years old and she has solemnized marriage with the petitioner and hence prays that the petitioner be released on bail.
6. On the otherhand, learned HCGP submits that both the complainant and the petitioner had developed close intimacy, which lead to cohabitation. That the victim was aged minor therefore, attracts 5 offence punishable under the POSCO Act and therefore considering the offence committed by the petitioner it is not fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail and therefore prays to reject the bail petition.
7. Heard learned counsels and perused the records.
8. Upon perusing the complaint lodged by the victim, it is seen that she has stated that she developed intimacy with the petitioner and also loving each other. It is also stated that they have decided to marry each other. But before marriage there was cohabitation occurred between them. Thus, marriage was not performed. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to lodge a complaint. Therefore, upon considering the material on record as available at this stage prima-facie it is revealed that there is no forceful act or threat by the petitioner on the complainant. The complainant also 6 on her will had developed intimacy with the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody for nearly 5 months now.
9. The complainant has filed an affidavit stating that she is aged 19 years and both the petitioner and the victim were in love for two years and left house and went to Chitaguppa, Bidar District as their parents did not agree for their marriage. Thereafter, the parents accepted to perform their marriage and now both are married. Further, deposed that the complainant is now staying in the house of the petitioner along with her family. On this line, the complainant had filed an affidavit. Therefore, considering all these facts and circumstances without forming any opinion or going into the merits of the case, and only on considering the prima facie material as available at this stage including the affidavit filed by the complainant today and considering the fact that the petitioner is in prison for five months and charge-sheet is filed. Therefore, prima- 7 facie it shows that the presence of the petitioner is not required.
10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail in Crime No.63/2020 Chincholi Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 343, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, pending before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, subject to the following;
CONDITIONS
1. The petitioner shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;
2. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;
3. The petitioner shall attend the Court regularly on all the dates of hearing, 8 without fail and shall co-operate for speedy disposal of the case.
4. If the petitioner fails to appear before the court on two consecutive dates of hearing, then it may entail cancellation of liberty granted by this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE JJ