Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1074 (KAR)

Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka

2023-09-08

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. The appellant/accused has filed this appeal praying to set aside the order dtd. 30/11/2022 passed in Crl.Misc No. 719/2022 by the Addl. Sessions Judge Fast Track Special Court - 1 (POCSO) at Chikkaballapura, whereunder the bail petition of the appellant/accused sought in respect of Crime No.131/2022 of Peresandra police station for the offences punishable under Sec. 363, 376(3) of IPC, 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 and 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of The Schedule Caste/ Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 came to be rejected. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned HCGP and respondent No.1 State. Respondent No.2 complainant in-spite of service of notice remained absent. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim girl was found missing during early hours on 16/6/2022. The family members searched for her and thereafter filed complaint and the case came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 363 of IPC against unknown person. Later on 20/6/2022 the victim girl was traced in Ommanadahalli in Krishnagiri District in the company of appellant/accused and therefore, both were brought to police station. The victim girl, in her statement, narrated that he came in contact with accused through Instagram and accused told her that he will marry her and the victim girl went along with accused and stayed in a shed where the appellant/accused had sexual intercourse with her. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against appellant/accused for the aforesaid offences. The accused, who was in judicial custody, has filed bail petition which came to be rejected by the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the victim girl had a love affair with appellant/accused. The history recorded by the doctor who examined the victim girl reveals that the sexual intercourse is with consent. The statement of victim recorded by police and the statement of victim girl recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C reveals that victim girl was in love with the appellant/accused. The victim girl who has been already examined as PW.1 stated about her love affair with the appellant/accused. The statement of victim recorded by police and the statement of victim girl recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C reveals that victim girl was in love with the appellant/accused. The victim girl who has been already examined as PW.1 stated about her love affair with the appellant/accused. The appellant/accused is aged 22 years, his father is doing agriculture and it is stated that he is also ready for marrying the victim girl as she has attained age of marriage and prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to the appellant. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP contended that victim girl is aged 17 years and even after knowing the same, the appellant/accused had sexual intercourse under the false promise of marriage. The victim girl in her statement and in her evidence has specifically stated that the appellant/accused had sexual intercourse with her. The appellant is a resident of Tamilnadu and that the charge sheet is filed. There is a prima facie case against the appellant/accused and if he is granted bail, it is difficult to secure him for trial and he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned HCGP, this court has gone through the impugned order and charge sheet that has been filed. 7. In the statement of the victim girl recorded by the police and recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C, she has specifically stated that she came in contact with the appellant/accused through Instagram and she had a love affair with the accused. The victim is aged 17 years and she is of the age of understanding the consequences of her acts. As the charge sheet has been filed, the appellant/accused is not required for investigation. Without considering the said aspects, the learned Special Judge has passed the impugned order which requires interference by this court. In the result, the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dtd. 30/11/2022 passed in Crl. Misc No. 719/2022 by Addl. Sessions Judge Fast Track Special Court - 1 (POCSO) at Chikkaballapura is set aside. The appellant/accused is granted bail and is ordered to be released on bail in crime No. 131/2022 of Peresandra Police Station pending in a Spl. The impugned order dtd. 30/11/2022 passed in Crl. Misc No. 719/2022 by Addl. Sessions Judge Fast Track Special Court - 1 (POCSO) at Chikkaballapura is set aside. The appellant/accused is granted bail and is ordered to be released on bail in crime No. 131/2022 of Peresandra Police Station pending in a Spl. SC No. 107/2022, subject to the following conditions: 1) The appellant/accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court. 2) The appellant/accused shall not tamper the prosecution witness. 3) The appellant/accused shall attend the court on all dates of hearing and co-operate with the investigation. 4) The appellant/accused shall not involve in commission of any similar offences during the pendency of the case registered against him.