Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1513
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J.
Kumar G @ Bavikatti Anand Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 101135 of 2020
Decided On : 01-10-2020
S.S. Yadrami, Advocate, Seema Shiva Naik, Advocate
The grant of bail is the general rule, and putting a person in jail is an exception. The court must consider the nature of the charges, the likelihood of the accused tampering with witnesses, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Law - IPC, Child Marriage Restraint Act, POCSO Act - Section 363, 366, 376(2)(3), 506, 9, 4, 6 - The court granted bail to the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in a case registered for offences under various sections of IPC, Child Marriage Restraint Act, and POCSO Act. The court considered the age of the victim girl, the nature of the charges, and the absence of criminal antecedents of the accused in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-accused No.1 sought bail in a case registered for offences under various sections of IPC, Child Marriage Restraint Act, and POCSO Act. The victim girl, aged 16 years and 6 months, was allegedly made pregnant and married by the petitioner-accused No.1.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the victim girl had a love affair with the petitioner-accused No.1, and he married her when she became pregnant. The court noted that the victim girl was of the age of understanding the consequences of her acts and that there were no criminal antecedents of the petitioner-accused No.1.
Issues: The issues revolved around the age of the victim girl, the nature and gravity of the charges, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with witnesses or fleeing from justice if granted bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence, the completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet, the absence of criminal antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of the accused coming in contact with hardened criminals if detained in prison.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner-accused No.1 subject to conditions, including execution of a personal bond, non-indulgence in tampering with prosecution witnesses, and regular appearance before the court.
JUDGMENT
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No.202/2019 of Kurugod Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(3) and 506 of IPC and under Section 9 of Child Marriage Restraint Act and under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short "POCSO" ).
2. It is the case of the prosecution that one Basavaraj the father of the victim girl has filed complaint stating that her daughter is aged 16 years and 6 months and she used to go to Shrinivas Camp for plucking Anjur fruits and the petitioner is running an auto who used to pickup his daughter to work and drop her back. It is stated in the complaint that the petitioner has been teasing victim girl for which he was advised. About 11 months back he came to know that his daughter is pregnant and on asking she said that the petitioner has been loving her and likes her and will marry her and about 7 months back he has taken her to Sangameshwara Temple at Kurugod and has married her and afterwards has made her pregnant and has threatened her not to reveal the same to her parents and subsequently she has delivered a female baby which is two months at the time of filing complaint. On 25.11.2019, the complainant and his wife went to the petitioner and asked him to take victim girl to his house and he said to have denied the same, also saying that the child is not born to him and refused to take their daughter (victim girl) to his house. Petitioner knowing that their daughter is a minor has loved her and has married her and made her pregnant. The said complaint came to registered in Crime No. 202/2019 of Kurugod Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 363, 376A, 494, 506 of IPC and Section 9 and 11 of Child Marriage Restrain act and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of POCSO Act. The petitioner came to be arrested on 16.02.2020. The bail petition filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 came to be rejected by trial Court. Therefore, the petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking bail.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 and learned HCGP for respondent-State.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 that victim girl is aged about 17 years and the petitioner married her and she become pregnant. It is his further submission that there is a love affair between the petitioner and the victim girl. It is his further submission that the petitioner is aged 21 years and if he is detained in judicial custody, he comes in contact with hardened criminals. It is his further submission that victim girl is aged 17 years. As on the date of offence, she is of the age of understanding the consequences of her acts. It is his further submission that investigation is over, charge sheet has been filed and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused is not necessary and petitioneraccused is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. With this he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP contended that victim girl is aged 16 years and 6 months as on the date of offence. It is her further submission that petitioner had sexual intercourse with victim girl and made her pregnant and thereafter he married her even though he know that she is minor. It is her further submission that after the marriage of the petitioner with the victim girl, he could not married another girl. The petitioner even after marrying this victim girl has married CW.10-Mahadevi alias Lakshmi. It is her further submission that charge sheet material prima facie show that the offences alleged against the petitioner-accused No.1. It is her further submission that if he is granted with bail, he will tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, she prays to reject the bail petition.
6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel fo
