Karnataka High Court
Manoj Alias Manu Manjappa Daler vs State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2021
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23 R D DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101070/2021
BETWEEN:
MANOJA @ MANU MANJAPPA DALER,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER,
R/O. GANGAMATHA GONDI, TQ. HANGAL,
DIST. HAVERI - 581110
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI , AD VOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH AD UR POLICE STATION ,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD.
2. NAGENDRAPPA S/ O. BASA PPA HOSM ANI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: A GRICULTURE,
R/O. GONDI VILLA GE, TQ. HANGAL,
DIST. HAVERI, PIN - 581110
... RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. RAVIN DRA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYIN G TO ALLOW THE
PETITION AND EN LARGE THE PETITI ONER/A1 ON BAIL
IN SPL. S C NO.03/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS J UDGE, FTSC- 1, A T
2
HAVERI, REGISTERED FOR THE OFF ENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 363, 376( 2)( i)(n) OF IPC SECTIONS 4
AND 6 OF PROTECTION OF CHI LD REN FROM SEXUA L
OFFENCES ACT , 2012.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the accused under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.159/2020 of Adur Police Station, (pending in Spl. S.C.No.3/2021 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, at Haveri) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(i)(n) of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 3 (hereinafter referred to as the 'POCSO Act', for brevity).
2. The case of the prosecution is that, one Nagendrappa S/o. Basappa Hosmani has filed complaint stating that, he is residing along with his family in Gondi village and on 17.11.2020 at 7.30 p.m., the petitioner/accused belonging to the same village has enticed his daughter victim-girl and they searched for her and she was not found and at about 2.00 a.m., the petitioner/accused had left this victim-girl to the house of the complainant and went away. It is further stated that, at that point of time they enquired her as to where she had been to and it appears that the said Manoj had taken her away. On the same issue panchayat was conducted 18.11.2020 and again panchayat was held in 4 Akki Alur village in Gangaparameshwari Temple and at that time the petitioner did not give respect to the said Panchayatdars and spoken in a rude manner and once again took away the complainant's daughter i.e. victim-girl in a car. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.159/2020 for the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC. The police arrested the petitioner/accused on 20.11.2020. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act. After filing the charge-sheet the petitioner filed bail application in Spl. S.C.No.3/2021 and the same came to be rejected by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, at Haveri by order 5 dated 04.04.2021. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court, seeking bail.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. It would be the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner is innocent, has not committed any offence as alleged and he has been falsely implicated in the case. On perusal of the statement of the victim-girl recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., no overt act is alleged against the petitioner. The medical records reveal no injuries over the body and genitalia of the victim-girl and there is no penetration. Since, the charge-sheet is filed, the petitioner 6 is not required for any custodial interrogation. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the offence alleged against the petitioner is a heinous office. The victim-girl is aged 14 years and the petitioner/accused has enticed and had sexual intercourse with her. If the petitioner is granted bail, he will tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.
6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records.
7
7. The accusations leveled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet is that, he enticed the victim-girl aged about 14 years and had sexual intercourse with her. The statement of the victim-girl has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein she has stated that due to fear of assault by her parents as she was taking over the phone with the petitioner she went to the house of the petitioner and he advised her that she is a minor and asked her to go to her house and she was sent to her house back at 4.00 a.m. and during the panchayat on the next day her mother pushed her and she fell down and sustained head injury and she became unconscious and she was taken to the hospital and after recovery she was taken by her parents to their house. In the said statement, 8 the victim-girl has not alleged any enticing or forceful sexual intercourse by the petitioner/accused. The Doctor who has examined the victim-girl has stated that there are no injuries on the body and external genitalia of the victim-girl and the hymen was torn while examination. The Doctor has also opined that, there is no penetration. Looking to all these aspects, whether the petitioner/accused has committed offence alleged has to be established at the time of trial. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail, the petitioner is likely to cause threat to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions. 9
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in Crime No.159/2020 of Adur Police Station subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. Due to COVID-19, the petitioner is permitted to furnish 10 surety within two months. If circumstances arise, the jurisdictional Court is permitted to extend the period for furnishing surety.
ii) The petitioner/accused shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner/accused shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE * S vh / -