Karnataka High Court
Prashanth Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 April, 2023
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
CRL.A No. 400 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 400 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. PRASHANTH KUMAR
S/O NAGARAJ
AGED 28 YEARS
R/AT MATADA BAYALU
BYRAMANGALA DHAKALE
BIDADI HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 159
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BIDADI PS
REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
signed by
LAKSHMI T BENGALURU-560001.
Location:
High Court of 2. VICTIM REPTD. BY
Karnataka D/O RAVIKUMAR
AGED 17 YEARS
REPT BY HER GRANDMOTHER
SMT. THIMMAMMA
W/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED 70 YEARS
R/AT MATADA BAYALU
BYRAMANGALA DHAKALE
BIDADI HOBLI
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562159
-2-
CRL.A No. 400 of 2023
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.RAHUL RAI, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2022
PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, RAMANAGARA FOR GRANT OF REGULAR BAIL AND
HONOURABLE COURT WAS PLEASED TO REJECTE THE BAIL IN
CRL.MISC.NO.994/2022. ii. ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL
IN SPL.C.NO.175/2022 (CR.NO.315/2022) OF BIDADI POLICE
STATION FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 363 R/W
376(2)(n) OF IPC, SECTION 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT, SECTION
9 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT AND SECTION
3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the sole accused in Crime
No.315/2022 of Bidadi Police Station, wherein charge-
sheet is filed for offences punishable under Sections 366,
376(2)(n) of IPC, Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act,
2012, Section 9 of Prohibition of the Child Marriage Act,
2006 and Section 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST
(POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and
learned High Court Government Pleader for
CRL.A No. 400 of 2023
respondent/State and perused the material available on
record.
3. Respondent No.2 has been served but there is
no representation.
4. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that
accused/appellant by inducing the minor victim aged about
17 years 2 months, kidnapped her on his motorcycle
bearing Registration No.KA-05-LJ-0407, on 17.08.2022 at
about 5.00 p.m. from Byramangala and took her to
Mysuru and stayed with her in one Annapurna Hotel and
committed penetrative sexual assault on her. Thereafter,
on 18.08.2022 he took her to Chamundeshwari Hill and
tied thaali to her and returned to the hotel and repeatedly
committed penetrative sexual assault and thereby
committed the charge-sheeted offences.
5. According to the prosecution the date of birth of
the victim girl is 14.06.2005 and therefore she was a
minor aged below 18 years as on the date of commission
of offence. The learned counsel for appellant has disputed
CRL.A No. 400 of 2023
the age certificate issued by the Head Master of the school
mentioning the date of birth of the victim contending that
the same is not sufficient to prove the age of the victim. It
is his further contention that even according to
prosecution there was a love affair between the victim and
the accused and there was no force, threat or inducement,
on the other hand, the victim herself accompanied the
accused since her parents wanted to perform her marriage
with some other boy. He contends that there is no
sufficient material to show that there was any penetrative
sexual assault committed against the victim and the
statement recoded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. does not
indicate the same. He submits that the appellant is
languishing in judicial custody for nearly 7 months and
submits that he is ready and willing to abide by any
conditions. Accordingly, seeks to allow the appeal.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader has
opposed the prayer seeking bail on the ground that the
victim has given her statement which prima facie show
CRL.A No. 400 of 2023
that the appellant has kidnapped her from the lawful
custody of her parents and then took her to a lodge and
committed penetrative sexual assault on her. He contends
that as per medical examination report of the victim,
hymen is not intact. Therefore submits that there is a
prima facie case against the appellant. He further
contends that the prosecution has collected the age
certificate from the concerned school wherein the victim
studied and the date of birth of the victim is mentioned as
14.06.2005. Therefore, the victim was a minor as on the
date of the offence. He submits that in the event of grant
of bail to the appellant, he may try to influence her and
thereby hamper the case of prosecution. He therefore
seeks to reject the appeal.
7. A missing complaint was lodged by the
grandmother of the victim on 19.08.2022 stating that her
granddaughter i.e., the victim aged about 17 years 2
months went out of the house at about 5.00 p.m. on
17.08.2022 and she did not return to the house and
CRL.A No. 400 of 2023
therefore they searched for her in the nearby villages and
also enquired with their friends and relatives, but she was
not traced etc. The victim was secured on 20.08.2022 and
her statement was recorded by the police. She has stated
that she is in love with the accused and coming to know
about their love affair, their parents were discussing to
perform her marriage with some other boy and therefore
she informed the same to the accused. On 17.08.2022 she
went to Byramangala Bus stop from where accused took
her on his motorcycle to Mysuru and they stayed in the
room wherein, the accused had physical contact with her.
She has further stated that the accused married her by
tying a thaali at Chamundeshwari temple and on
19.08.2022 they returned to Byramangala.
8. In the statement of the victim recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she has not specifically stated that
the accused has committed penetrative sexual assault on
her. Therefore, the prosecution has to establish its case in
a full-fledged trial. The age of the victim is also required to
CRL.A No. 400 of 2023
be established by the prosecution in accordance with law.
The learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the petition
filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., has observed that the
accused has clearly admitted that he had sexual
intercourse with the minor victim. It appears that such
observation is based on the voluntarily statement of the
accused, which is not admissible.
9. Accused is already arrested and interrogated.
Investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been
filed. Accused has undertaken to appear before the trial
Court regularly and to abide by any conditions.
Considering the facts and circumstances, without
expressing any view on the merits of the case, the
appellant can be admitted to bail by imposing stringent
conditions. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
CRL.A No. 400 of 2023
The order dated 12.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc
No.994/2022 by the Court of I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Ramanagara is set aside.
The appellant/accused in Special Case No.175/2022
pending on the file of the Court of I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Ramanagara (Crime No.315/2022 of
Bidadi Police Station) shall be enlarged on bail, subject to
following conditions:
i. He shall execute a personal bond for a
sum of Rs.1,00,00/- (Rupees One Lakh
only) with two sureties for the like-sum
to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional
Court.
ii. He shall furnish proof of his residential
address and shall inform the Court if
there is any change in the address.
iii. He shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses either directly or
indirectly.
CRL.A No. 400 of 2023
iv. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
trial court, without the prior permission
of the learned Sessions Judge.
v. He shall appear before the trial court
on all dates of hearing without fail.
SD/-
JUDGE
HB
