Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri.Bhupati S/O Okubappa Pawar @ ... on 4 March, 2020
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102410/2018
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPTD. BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
ILAKAL RURAL POLICE STATION,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT,
THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GEENRAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD BENCH.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)
AND:
SRI. BHUPATI S/O. KUBAPPA PAWAR @ KARABARI,
AGE 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BALAKUNDIO TANDA,
HUNGUND TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V.R.SHIVANGAL & A.S.DALAWAI, ADVOCATES)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) OF
Cr.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE II
ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT AND DIRECT
THE CONCERNED POLICE TO ARREST THE ACCUSED AND
COMMIT HIM INTO CUSTODY FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376(1), 376(2)(i)(n), 447, 403 OF
IPC, SECTION 4 & 6 OF POCSO ACT, 2012.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed for cancellation of bail granted by the trial Court in Crime No.74/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 376(2) (i) (n), 447, 307 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that, the daughter of the complainant i.e. victim aged about 14 years was alone in the agricultural field and the respondent herein taking advantage of the same, trespassed into the land and committed forcible intercourse and tried to strangulate her neck with the veil she was wearing. After seeing the complainant approaching him, the accused ran away from the place of the incident. The father of the victim filed a complaint before the police and police have registered the case. The accused filed an application under Section 3 167(2)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. seeking statutory bail as the charge sheet has not been filed within the prescribed period. The Trial Court committed an error in entertaining the application under Section 167(2) even though charge sheet is filed well within time, but non furnishing of the original document of panchanama is not a ground to enlarge the respondent on bail for the heinous offence of 376 of IPC and hence, prayed this court to set aside the order impugned and cancel the bail granted in favour of the respondent herein.
3. This petition is filed on 15.12.2018 and a copy of the cancellation of bail petition was served on 29.06.2019 and in spite of receipt of the cancellation of the bail petition, the respondent did not choose to file any objections to the cancellation of the bail application. This matter is also listed before this Court on 02.03.2020 and there was no representation even matter was called twice and in order to meet the ends of 4 justice, matter was adjourned to today. Today also the respondent counsel is absent and no representation is made.
4. Having the heard the petitioner's counsel and on perusal of the records and also the impugned order, the Trial Court while granting the bail made an observation that the charge sheet has been filed within time prescribed under Section 167 of Cr.P.C., but not complied the office objection raised by the concerned receiving clerk and mere filing of the charge sheet was not complete, although it was filed well within time. Mere filing of the charge sheet in time is not sufficient, unless it is free from all lacunas pointed out by the concerned clerk and it is observed that there is laxity on the part of the Investigating officer. It can be said that bail application filed by the accused deserves to be allowed. The reason assigned by the Trial Court is nothing but in an irresponsible manner examined the 5 material on record. The record discloses that the victim is aged about 14 years and POCSO offences are invoked against the respondent and material also discloses that the victim minor girl was subjected to sexual intercourse and the father of the victim/complainant, who witnessed the incident of committing forcible sexual intercourse, had lodged the complaint immediately. When all these materials are available before the Court and serious offences are invoked against the petitioner, the trial Judge while exercising the discretion irresponsibly granted the bail. Even though the trial Court comes to the conclusion that the charge sheet has been filed well within the time, but non-compliance of office objections itself was sufficient to grant the bail and the said callous attitude of the trial Court is deprecated and it is nothing but stupidity by the trial Court in granting the bail when an heinous 6 offence has been taken place against a girl that too a minor girl, who is aged about 14 years.
5. In view of the above discussions, this Court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed.
The impugned order of granting bail exercising the powers under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. dated 25th July, 2018 in Crime No.74/2018 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot is hereby set aside.
The bail granted in favour of the accused/respondent herein is hereby cancelled and the trial Court is directed to secure the accused forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE *Svh/Sh/-