Karnataka High Court
Shri. Yallappa S/O Shivaji Takkekar vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 May, 2022
Author: K. Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRL.P NO 100953 OF 2022
BETWEEN
1. SHRI. YALLAPPA S/O SHIVAJI TAKKEKAR
AGE. 25 YEARS,OCC. MESON WORK
R/O. YADOGA, TQ. KHANAPUR,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591302
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAM . P. GHORPADE, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH KHANAPUR P.S.
RPE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BELAGAVI-590001
2. MAHESH S/O PUNDALIK BHEKANE
AGE. 48 YEARS,OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YADOGA,TQ. KHANAPUR
DIST. BELAGAVI-591302
RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR
REP. BY HER FATHER NATURAL GUARDIAN
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING
TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL WHO IS ACCUSED IN KHANAPUR P.S. CRIME
2
NO.16/2022 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 366A, 506 OF IPC,
SECTION 67 OF I.T. ACT, AND SECTION 12 OF POCSO ACT, 2012.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER VIDEO CONFERENCING
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking for grant of regular bail in respect of Crime No.16/2022 registered by Khanapur Police station for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 506 of IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint made by the victim minor girl, the police registered a case against the petitioner-accused alleging that when complainant- victim girl was studying in IInd PUC and residing with her parent, she came in contact with the accused and he was insisting to 3 love with her. On 4/7/2021 at 8.30 a.m. petitioner took her in his motorcycle against her will to a jungle near Ramnagar where he tried to have sexual intercourse with her and taken nude photographs of the victim minor girl and dropped her back to her house. Subsequently, she avoided the relationship of the petitioner and not responded to his phone calls. On 21/01/2022 she came to know through her cousin brother-Prabhu Chandrakanath that he has received whatsapp messages of nude photographs of victim minor girl. Thereafter victim girl lodged the complaint against the petitioner. The police arrested the petitioner on 28/1/2022 and remanded to judicial custody. Hence, the petitioner approached the Sessions Judge for grant of bail. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the bail petition. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court for grant of bail.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences. Petitioner only abducted the minor girl and he has not insisted for intercourse with her. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. Police have not collected any material or call details record 4 in respect of his mobile phone and not produced with the charge sheet. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that accused kidnapped the minor girl and tried to intercourse with her and he viral the nude photographs of the victim minor girl in the social media. Thereafter, complaint came to be filed after one year of the alleged incident. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is delay in lodging the complaint. The FSL report is not received. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State and perused the material on record.
7. On perusal of the statement made by the victim girl under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. discloses that accused took her in his motorcycle toward Ramnagar jungle wherein he removed her cloths against her will and taken nude photographs. Thereafter, 5 he leaved her near her house. Subsequently, she avoided the relationship of the petitioner and not responded to his phone calls. When she came to know through her cousin brother Prabhu Chandrakanth that he has received whatsapp messages of nude photographs of her, she lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police. Though the police have seized the mobile phone and sim card of the petitioner and sent to FSL for testing, but the said FSL report has not received in respect of the accused who is in custody for more than four months. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet has been filed, however the police have not produced CDR report for having sent nude photographs and also whatapp messages sent by the petitioner to the cousin brother of the complainant. As regard to Section 366(A) of IPC, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence does not disclose abducting of the minor girl. Of course, Section 67 of IT Act and Section 12 of the POCSO Act clearly attract in respect of the petitioner. Though the police previously registered a case for the offence punishable under Sections 366(A) of IPC, but it is a matter of consideration 6 by the learned Sessions Judge who is having jurisdiction for framing of charges. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petition, by imposing stringent conditions, if bail is granted to the petitioner no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in Crime No.16/2022 registered by Khanapur Police station for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 506 of IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 subject to the following conditions:
i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court.
ii. The petitioner shall not hamper/tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iii. The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offence.7
iv. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of this court without prior permission of the trial court.
v. The petitioner shall take the trial without causing any delay.
If any of the conditions are violated then the prosecution is at liberty to move the application for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vb/-