SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Kar) 651

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.P.Sandesh, J.
Harisha - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 5619/2022
Decided On : 01-07-2022

Advocates appeared:
Abhilash Kumar M.N., Advocate, M.R.Nanjunda Gowda, Advocate, H.S.Shankar, Advocate

The timing of the sexual acts in relation to the marriage and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case influenced the court's decision to grant bail.

Headnote:

Regular Bail - Sexual Offences - Minor Victim - Marriage - POCSO Act - Prohibition of Child Marriage Act

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought regular bail for the offences of subjecting a minor victim to sexual acts and marrying her, invoking various sections of the IPC, POCSO Act, and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the victim was subjected to sexual acts only after the marriage, as per her 164 statement, and that the petitioner should be granted bail with certain conditions to protect the interest of the prosecution.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the allegations of subjecting a minor to sexual acts and child marriage.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the victim's statement, the timing of the sexual acts in relation to the marriage, and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in deciding to grant bail.

Final Decision: The petition for regular bail was allowed, and the petitioner was granted bail with specific conditions to safeguard the prosecution's interest.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition is filed under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.300/2021 of Bagepalli Police Station, Chikkaballapura, for the offence punishable under Ss. 363 and 376(2)(n) of IPC, Ss. 4, 6 and 17 of POCSO Act and Ss. 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that this petitioner subjected the minor victim girl for sexual act against her wish and also got married her on 21/9/2021. Hence, the police have invoked the offence under Ss. 363 and 376(2)(n) of IPC, Ss. 4, 6 and 17 of POCSO Act and Ss. 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the petitioner and the victim were loving each other and both of them went to Hindupura Town, Andhra Pradesh and not subjected her for sexual act prior to marriage and only after the marriage on 21/9/2021, she was subjected to sexual act and 164 statement of the victim girl also discloses that after the marriage, they lived as husband and wife.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State would submit that, in order to show that the victim was subjected to sexual act prior to marriage, no material is placed before the Court. However, the victim girl in her 164 statement states that she was subjected to sexual act after the marriage on 21/9/2021.

6. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, the victim girl went along with the petitioner to Hindupura Town, Andhra Pradesh and though allegation is made in the charge-sheet that on the same day, she was subjected to sexual act in the night in the lodge, but on perusal of the 164 statement of the victim girl, the same discloses that she was not subjected to sexual act prior to marriage and only after the marriage on 21/9/2021 in Yoga Narasimhaswamy Temple, she was subjected to sexual act and they lived as husband and wife.

7. Having taken note of the 164 statement of the victim girl and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and though the victim is a minor, this petitioner subjected her for sexual act only after the marriage, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C., subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:-

    ORDER

      The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in Crime No.300/2021 of Bagepalli Police Station, Chikkaballapura, for the offence punishable under Ss. 363 and 376(2)(n) of IPC, Ss. 4, 6 and 17 of POCSO Act and Ss. 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, subject to the following conditions:

        (i) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

          (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

            (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the 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 of the Court, till the case registered against him is disposed of.

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top