Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 568 (KAR)

Veerbhadra v. State Of Karnataka

2020-02-27

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2020
JUDGMENT Suraj Govindaraj, J. - The petitioner-accused is before this court seeking to be enlarged in connection with FIR(POCSO) No. 399/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 of IPC and Section 4, 6 and 12 of POCSO Act 2012. 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Ramesh lodged a complaint alleging that his daughter-the victim was studying in PUC in MNM Girls college. She had been to college on 01.07.2019 and on that day the petitioner has kidnapped her and therefore the complainant requested the Police to take necessary action against the petitioner. During the course of enquiry the Police found the petitioner and the victim at Ramalingeshwar camp, Gangavati. The victim in her voluntary statement had stated that she had traveled with the petitioner to Hulagi in Auto and thereafter to Hosapete and then to Mysore. Then they went to Rangasamudra on 02.07.2019, took a house on rent and stayed there for nearly a month. During which time the petitioner used to go to work and the victim used to take care of the house and thereafter they came to Ramalingeshwar camp, Gangavati. When the Police acting on the above complaint of kidnapping arrested the petitioner and after recording of the statement of the victim that during this period the petitioner and the victim had sexual intercourse, registered a complaint against the petitioner under Section 363, 366A r/w Section 12 of POCSO Act. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 29.07.2019 and has been in custody from then. 3. Sri. K.L. Patil appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware about the victim being a minor, even according to the complaint the victim was more than 17 years of age. The petitioner and the victim wanted to marry each other and apprehending opposition from their parents they had eloped and had stayed in Rangasamudra. On their return they expected that the parents would agree for their marriage but however, the petitioner was arrested. The victim went with the petitioner voluntarily, there was no kidnapping and therefore, there is no offence which has been committed by the petitioner. The petitioner ought to be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP would submit that whether the petitioner knew the victim to be a minor or not is relevant for the POCSO Act, since serious allegations are made against the petitioner. The petitioner ought to be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP would submit that whether the petitioner knew the victim to be a minor or not is relevant for the POCSO Act, since serious allegations are made against the petitioner. The petitioner ought not to be enlarged on bail. 5. Heard Sri. K.L. Patil counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned HCGP and perused the records. 6. A perusal of the voluntary statement given by the victim would indicate that there was relationship between the petitioner and the accused. They wanted to marry each other. They apprehended that their parents would object to their marriage, hence, they had eloped. The petitioner and the victim stayed together in a rented house for nearly a month. The petitioner made efforts to find work, earn his living and take care of the victim during that time. Thereafter, they returned back to a place near the home of the victim and expected that the parents would agree for the marriage, however, the Police arrested the petitioner. 7. They contended that the petitioner was not aware whether the victim was a minor, would also need to be considered. The petitioner and the victim have stayed together voluntarily. The medical reports do not show any forcible sexual assault and or any external injuries. The petitioner being 20 years of age and not having any prior criminal complaint against him, I am of the considered opinion that the further retention of the petitioner in judicial custody and exposing the petitioner to other under trials or convicts would not be advisable. For the reason also, the petitioner is required to be enlarged on bail. 8. Considering the above, I am of the opinion that the accused ought to be released on bail with stringent conditions. Hence, I pass 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 FIR(POCSO) No. 399/2019 of Gangavathi Rural Police Station, Gangavathi Rural Circle, Koppal-District, pending on the file of Prl. District and Sessions and Special Court, Koppal for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 of IPC r/w Section 4, 6 and 12 of POCSO Act 2012 subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. District and Sessions and Special Court, Koppal for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 of IPC r/w Section 4, 6 and 12 of POCSO Act 2012 subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two local sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. (ii) The petitioner shall be regular in appearing before the trial Court on every date of hearing as also when called upon to do so by the trial Court. (iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and or any matter relating to the case of the prosecution. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without permission of the trial Court. In the event of violation of any of the above terms, the above bail shall stand automatically cancelled. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.