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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 34987

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8934/2022

BETWEEN:

HARISHA

S/O MANJEGOWDA

AGED 18 YEARS

R/O ARLIKATTE

AGRAHARA TOWN

CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN

HASSAN DISTRICT - 573116

..PETITIONER

(BY SRI.GIREESHA J T, ADVOCATE)

AND:

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R.1

R.2 SERVED)

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN P S

REP. BY SPP

HIGH COUR BUILDING

BENGALURU 3 560 001

2. C.B.JAYARAM,

S/O BOREGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

GANDHI CIRCLE,

MAGALAKERI,

CHANNARAPATNA TOWN,

HASSAN DISTRICT 573 116

2

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING

TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.137/2022 OF

CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN P.S., HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE

PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 363 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 8 AND

12 OF POCSO ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1 AT HASSAN IN

SPL.C.NO.345/2022.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439

of Cr.P.C. for enlarging him on bail in Crime No.137/2022 of

Channarayapatna

Town

Police

Station,

registered

in

Spl.C.No.345/2022 on the file of Additional District and

Sessions

Judge,

FTSC-1,

at

Hassan

for

the

offences

punishable under Section 363 of IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of

the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for

short 8the POCSO Act9).

2.

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are

that:

The complainant C.B.Jayaram is the maternal grand-

father of the victim girl. His daughter Sudharani was married

to one Naganna. Sudharani died about 12 years back and the

3

victim is now residing in the house of the complainant and

she is studying S.S.L.C. It is alleged that on 16.04.2022 at

about 12.30 p.m. the victim went outside the house, but she

did not return and therefore the complainant has lodged a

missing complaint. Subsequently, it is revealed that the victim

along with accused/petitioner went to Dharmastala and they

stayed for one day and subsequently as per her request they

returned. In the meantime, they had knowledge of the

complaint lodged and therefore she approached the police

station. The Investigating Officer has recorded her statement

and she was also sent for medical examination. But the victim

has refused to undergo medical examination.

3.

Under these circumstances, the Investigating

Officer after completing the investigation submitted charge

sheet for the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC

and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner was

apprehended and he was remanded to judicial custody. Hence

the petitioner approached this Court.

4

4.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-

State. Perused the records.

5.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would

invite the attention of this Court to the statement said to have

been given by the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

wherein there are no allegations of offences under the POCSO

Act. He further contended that the victim is aged about 16

years, at the same time, the petitioner is aged 18 years. The

petitioner is in custody since April 2022 and as such he seeks

for admitting the petitioner on bail. It is further contended

that the investigation is over and charge sheet has been

submitted.

6.

Per contra, the learned HCGP would oppose the

bail petition seriously and sought for dismissal of the petition

on the ground that the petitioner has committed offences

under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act and in case the

petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is very possibility of

5

tampering the prosecution witnesses and jumping the bail

conditions. Hence he would seek rejection of bail petition.

7.

Having heard the arguments and perusing the

records, it is the evident that the victim is studying in 10th

standard and she is staying with her maternal grand-father. It

is the further allegation of the prosecution that on 16.04.2022

at 12.30 p.m. she went outside the house along with dog and

then petitioner came there in an Auto, took her to

Channarayapatna bus stand. From there they went to

Dharmastala. It is further asserted that they stayed there till

18.04.2022 and as soon as she asserted that she wants to

return to the house, they returned to Channarayapatna.

When

she

got

knowledge

of

lodging

complaint,

she

approached the police. In her statement under Section 164

Cr.P.C. she simply asserted that the petitioner took her by

force from Channarayapatna to Dharmastala and she had no

intention to accompany him. But he threatened her that he is

going to assault her maternal grandfather and as such she

accompanied. But, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is

6

completely

silent

regarding

sexual

assault

so

as

to

incorporate the offences under Sections 8 and 12 of the

POCSO Act.

8.

Further her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

discloses that she voluntarily accompanied the petitioner to

Dharmastala. If

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