Karnataka High Court
Amit S/O Sangmesh Chougule vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 24 August, 2022
Author: P.N.Desai
Bench: P.N.Desai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200923/2022
BETWEEN:
AMIT S/O SANGMESH CHOUGULE
AGE: 21 YEARS OCC: EDUCATION
R/O: SHIRADON TQ: INDI
DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 205. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH KAKKALAMELI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.
BELAM SOMASHEKHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
01. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH CHADCHAN POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED THROUGH ADDL. STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH KALABURAGI-585 104.
02. DASHARATH S/O SIDDANNA PAWAR
AGE: 50 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: BARDOL TQ: INDI
DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586 204.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP FOR R1
RESPONDENT NO.2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THE BAIL PETITION AND MAY BE RELEASED ON BAIL IN
CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.26/2022 REGISTERED WITH
CHADCHAN POLICE STATION, VIJAYAPURA AND OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 344, 354, 363, 376 (2) (N)
AND 506 OF INDIAN PENAL COE AND SECTIONS 4, 6 AND 8 OF
POCSO ACT, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK COURT - I
(POCSO) AT VIJAYAPUR.
THIS PETITION COMNG ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short), seeking to enlarge the petitioner, who is arraigned as accused, on bail in Crime No.26/2022 of Chadachan Police Station, Vijayapura, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 344, 354, 363, 376 (2) (n) and 506 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, ('POCSO Act' for short), on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court-1 (POCSO) at Vijayapur.
02. It is the case of the prosecution that the FIR came to be registered on the basis of complaint filed by the father of the victim stating that the victim was studying in the college and this petitioner was teasing her number of times. On 26.03.2022 when the victim went to college in the morning at 07.30 a.m., she did not return to the house. Then the complainant enquired with her friends and others, as he could not get any information. He lodged the 3 complaint before the police on 31.03.2022. The police have registered the case against this petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. Thereafter, the police conducted the investigation and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 344, 354, 363, 376 (2) (n) and 506 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner is arrested and he is judicial custody. His bail petition came to be rejected by the Trial Court. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition.
03. Heard Sri. Manjunath Kakkalameli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Gururaj V. Hasilkar, the learned High Court Government Pleader.
04. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is innocent. The case against this petitioner is filed after lapse of six days of the incident. The petitioner has not committed offences as alleged against him. There is no allegation of any sexual intercourse. In the statement of victim recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, the victim age is shown as 17 years 03 months. The petitioner already completed 2nd year PUC 4 and further education. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by the father of the victim. The investigation is already completed and the petitioner is not required for further investigation. The petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to offer surety. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 05.04.2022. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.
05. Against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader filed objections and argued that the petitioner knowing full well that the victim is minor, he has misbehaved with her. He has threatened the victim and subjected her to sexual intercourse with her against her will and wish. The prosecution has placed the material to show that the petitioner has committed heinous offence which is under POCSO Act also. There is a presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. If the petitioner is released on bail he may threaten prosecution witnesses and he may abscond. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition. 5
06. I have perused the FIR, charge sheet and other materials. Admittedly, the allegation is that the petitioner followed the victim and misbehaved with her in the college. It is stated that her age is 17 years 03 months. The petitioner is aged about 21 years. Offcourse, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that age of the victim is to be taken as two years plus or minus to 17 years 03 months, she is major in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, The medical report shows that there are no external injuries. The Doctor has opined that the final report kept pending and awaiting for FSL report.
07. I have also perused the statement of victim before the JMFC Court under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The said statement does not show that this petitioner has committed sexual intercourse on her nor he has kidnapped her.
08. It is settled principle of law that bail is a rule and rejection is an exception. While granting or rejecting the bail application, the Court will have to take into consideration, 6 (1) the nature and seriousness of the offence;
(2) character of the accused;
(3) circumstances which are peculiar to accused;
(4) reasonable probabilities of presence of the accused not being secured at trial;
(5) reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; and (6) larger interest of public or the state and similar other considerations, which arise when a Court is asked to admit the accused to bail in a non-bailable offence.
09. So, in the light of these principles and in view of medical report, the statement of victim and other materials placed before the Court and keeping in mind the age of the victim, are considered the petitioner is entitled for bail.
10. The apprehension of the prosecution can be meted out by imposing reasonable conditions on the petitioner, as he has undertaken to co-operate with the investigation and furnish sureties. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
7
ORDER The criminal petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
The petitioner - accused - Amit s/o Sangmesh Chougale, in Crime No.26/2022 of Chadchan Police Station, Vijayapura, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-1 (POCSO) at Vijayapura, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 344, 354, 363, 376 (2) (n) and 506 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of POCSO Act, shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions.
i) The petitioner shall execute a self-bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties, for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-1 (POCSO) at Vijayapura.
ii) The petitioner shall not try to tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.8
iii) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activities.
iv) The petitioner shall furnish proof of his
residential correct address to the
investigating officer and shall inform the Court/Investigating Officer if there is any change in the address.
v) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of Trial Court.
vi) The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing without fail as and when directed, unless his presence is exempted.
In case if any of the condition is violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ