Karnataka High Court
Shantappa vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 30 May, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200464/2022
Between:
Shantappa S/o Shankrappa Kurimani,
Age: 23 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Antaragange Village, Tq. Sindagi,
Dist. Vijayapura-586 128.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. R.S.Lagali, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Through the SHO, Sindagi PS.,
Rep. by the Addl. State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Kalaburagi Bench-585 103.
2. Smt. Chandamma W/o Mallikarjun Atnoor,
Age: 42 years, Occ: Household work,
R/o. Antaragange Villagde, Tq.: Sindagi,
Dist: Vijayapura-586 128.
... Respondents
(By Sri. H.S.Shankar, HCGP)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to allow this bail petition and thereby
order the release of the petitioner on bail in Special Case
(POCSO) No.52/2021 (Arising out of Sindagi PS. FIR
(Crime) No.310/2021) pending on the file of Hon'ble Addl.
Sessions Judge & FTSC-I, (POCSO) Court, Vijayapura for
the offences punishable U/s.341, 504, 506, 376(2)(i) IPC
along with Sections 4, & 6 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court passed the following:
ORDER
The petitioner being the sole accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.310/2021 of Sindagi Police Station, pending in Special Case (POCSO) No.52/2021 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge and FTSC-I, (POCSO) Court, Vijayapura, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506, 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short 'POCSO Act') on the basis of the first information lodged by informant-Smt. Chandamma.
3
2. Heard Sri R.S.Lagali, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.S.Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the sole accused and he has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. It is alleged that he has committed sexual assault on the minor girl. The investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. The petitioner is not required for further investigation. His detention in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. He is not having criminal antecedents. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
4
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. History of the offence committed by the petitioner was given by the victim herself who is hardly aged about 14 years and studying in 8th standard. As per the medical report, accused has committed sexual assault on the victim minor girl. The statement of the victim was recorded. After investigation the matter is now set down for fixing the date for trial in Special case (POCSO) No.52/2021. Considering the seriousness of the offences, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the following:
5
REASONS
6. Specific allegation is made against the petitioner that he had sexually assaulted the victim girl who is aged 14 years. It is stated that taking advantage that she was returning from the school alone, the accused picked her up and committed forcible sexual assault. Medical records also supports the contention of the prosecution. The statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., is also produced. It also supports the contention of the prosecution. Considering the nature and seriousness of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE VNR