Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 877 (KAR)

Arun v. State And Another

2020-05-15

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State. Perused the records. 2. Learned HCGP submits that, he has no information about the service of notice issued to the complainant. 3. As per the First Information Report, the victim has already crossed 17 years, therefore, notice is not mandatory. In view of the urgency pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner/accused has been in judicial custody since March 2019, the matter is taken up for hearing. 4. The allegations made against the petitioner in brief are that, on 19.03.2019, the father of the victim girl has lodged a complaint before the respondent-Police stating that, since two years from the date of incident, the petitioner has developed intimacy with the victim girl. The record also discloses that, the petitioner and the victim girl were wandering around freely. The petitioner was also assured the victim girl that, he would marry her and take care of her. In this background, it is alleged that on 06.03.2019, the accused and the victim went together and on such assurance and persuasion, both of them had sexual activity with each other on 06.03.2019, 07.03.2019 and 08.03.2019 and thereafter, they were traced in pursuance of the complaint lodged by the father of the victim girl and the petitioner was arrested. The police have registered a case against the petitioner invoking the provisions of Section 366, 376, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC and Section 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(1)(r)(w), 2(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. 5. In view of the above circumstances and also in view of the victim girl has already crossed 17 years of age, I am of the opinion that, the prosecution has to prove during the course of full-dressed trial that, as on the date of the alleged incident, the victim girl has not attained age of eighteen years and she was not a consenting party to the alleged act. Even the facts disclose that the petitioner and the victim girl were loving each other and also they were wandering together. The learned counsel has also produced a copy of the charge sheet already filed by the concerned police. 6. Even the facts disclose that the petitioner and the victim girl were loving each other and also they were wandering together. The learned counsel has also produced a copy of the charge sheet already filed by the concerned police. 6. In the above said facts and circumstances, considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner and also the investigation being completed, and the victim is in the verge of attaining the age of majority, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail on certain conditions. Hence, the following,- ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused-Arun shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.61/2019 of Respondent- University Police Station, Kalaburagi District, for the alleged offences, now pending before the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi (Gulbarga), subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (The Trial court is hereby directed to accept e-filing of the affidavit/s of the surety/s along with necessary documents for his/their identification and the same shall be subjected to verification after the Lockdown Period of COVID-19 is over or on starting of the regular Court working). (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission, till the case registered against him is disposed of.