Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 494 (KAR)

Sharanappa v. State Of Karnataka

2020-02-19

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to be enlarged on bail in respect of Kushtagi P.S. Crime No.168/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 354(A), 354(D), 376, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, pending before the District and Sessions/Special Judge Koppal. 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Sharanappa Yamanappa Talawar, the complainant is stated to be the father of the victim, is a resident of Kurubanal village of Kushtagi Taluka of Koppal District. He lodged a complaint on 24.08.2019 at about 9.15 p.m., stating that his daughter who was aged about 16 years had left the school for last three years and was doing the agricultural work. The petitioner who is also residing in the same village developed intimacy with her, the complainant had called upon the parents of the petitioner and requested them to instruct the petitioner not to behave in such a manner. On 21.08.2019 at about 4.00 a.m., the petitioner is stated to have kidnapped the victim from their house stating that he is going to marry her and he will take care of her. 3. On finding that the victim was missing from the house, the complainant and his wife went to the house of the petitioner to enquire about the petitioner as also the whereabouts of the victim. Thereafter, after consultation with the elders of the village, the above complaint came to be file which was registered as Crime No.168/2019 in respect thereof. 4. The Kushtagi police have arrested the petitioner on 28.08.2019 when he was with the victim. It is subsequent thereto that the victim is said to have given a statement that the petitioner committed forcible sexual acts on her promising to marry her. After taking the victim from her parents house on 21.08.2019, he had taken the victim to Hubballi where they stated for a few days, then went to Tirupati and thereafter to the house of the relatives of the petitioner in Hallur Village. It is in this location the petitioner was arrested. The victim had subsequently givan a statement that the petitioner had violently forced himself on her. However, the medical report does not indicate any injuries on the victim. The petitioner had approached the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal on 30.10.2019 seeking for enlargement on bail. It is in this location the petitioner was arrested. The victim had subsequently givan a statement that the petitioner had violently forced himself on her. However, the medical report does not indicate any injuries on the victim. The petitioner had approached the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal on 30.10.2019 seeking for enlargement on bail. The said application in Special S.C.(POCSO)49/2019 came to be rejected by way of an order dated 03.01.2020 on the ground that the victim was a minor and the offence being punishable with life imprisonment, the petitioner ought not be released on bail. 5. Sri Sanjay Katageri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner and the victim knowing each other, the victim had voluntarily accompanied the petitioner and there is no offence of kidnapping. They traveled to Hubballi and thereafter to Tirupati and they had agreed to get married subsequently. There is no forcible sexual act committed by the petitioner on the victim. The medical report indicates that there are no injuries. The victim is aged about 17 years, worldly wise and she is capable of making her decisions and the complaint has been filed only at the instigation of the parents of the victim. In the 164 statement recorded by the Addl. JMFC Court Kushtagi on 29.08.2019, when the Magistrate questioned the victim she has voluntarily stated that there was no force of duress applied by the petitioner on her. She had voluntarily gone with the petitioner she had consented to sex with the petitioner. Hence, on this ground the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner would be entitled for bail and the petitioner would abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 6. Learned HCGP opposes for grant of bail that the victim being a minor cannot be consent by herself. The claim now made by the petitioner is unsustainable. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent and perused the papers. 8. The voluntary statement recorded before the Magistrate would indicate that the victim voluntarily went with the petitioner to three different places and stayed with him in those places. The cause for the arrest of the petitioner was the complaint lodged by the victims father and there is no complaint which has been lodged by the victim nor does she support the complaint lodged by her father. The cause for the arrest of the petitioner was the complaint lodged by the victims father and there is no complaint which has been lodged by the victim nor does she support the complaint lodged by her father. The statements made by her would indicate that she has not been kidnapped and there is no forceful act of rape committed. It is true that the minor cannot give consent however the case of the petitioner is that he did not know that the victim was a minor though that may not be the reason for acquittal per-se for the purpose of consideration of the bail application there is no bar. There does not seem to be any reason to continue the petitioner in judicial custody. The petitioner could be enlarged on bail by imposing stringent conditions. Accordingly, the following: ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Kushtagi P.S. Crime No.168/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 354(A), 354(D), 376, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012, pending before the District and Sessions/Special Judge Koppal, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court; ii. The petitioner shall appear before the Committal Court on every date of hearing; iii. The petitioner shall co-operate in the conclusion of the trial in the said proceedings. iv. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witness/s in any manner. v. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission, till the case registered her is disposed of. vi. The petitioner shall furnish a list of immovable properties owned by him to the police station. vii. If any of the above conditions are violated the above order shall stand automatically cancelled.