Manjunatha @ Manjunatha Reddy vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 6500 Kant

                                                -1-
                                                            NC: 2023:KHC:33138
                                                        CRL.A No. 1454 of 2023




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

                                               BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1454 OF 2023
                      BETWEEN:

                           MANJUNATHA @ MANJUNATHA REDDY
                           S/O MUNIREDDY
                           AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
                           RESIDING AT J. GOPALLI VILLAGE
                           MARUPALLI POST
                           DENKANI KOTAI TALUK
                           KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT
                           TAMIL NADU - 635 118.
                                                                     ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI MOHAN KUMARA D, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
                           BY KODIHALLI POLICE STATION
                           REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                           HIGH COURT COMPLEX
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA            BENGALURU - 560 001.
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              2.   SMT. MADEVI
KARNATAKA
                           W/O LATE SHRINIVAS
                           AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
                           RESIDING AT GATTIGINDA VILLAGE
                           KODIHALLI HOBALI, KANAKAPURA TALUK
                           RAMANGARA - 562 119.
                                                                 ...RESPONDENTS

                      (BY SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP FOR R1
                       R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
                                     -2-
                                                   NC: 2023:KHC:33138
                                               CRL.A No. 1454 of 2023




     THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.14(A) (2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE REJECTED BAIL ORDER DATED
27.06.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN CRL.MISC.No.460/2023
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363, 342, 506,
376 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT
ACT 2015 AND SECTION 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT 2012
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT KODIHALLI POLICE STATION
IN CR.No.7/2023 (SPL.C. (POCSO WITH SC/ST) No.44/2023 AND
CONSEQUENTLY THE APPELLANT MAY BE ENLARGED ON BAIL.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                              JUDGMENT

1. The appellant - accused has filed this appeal praying to

set-aside the order dated 27.06.2023 passed in

Crl.Misc.No.460/2023 by the I Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, whereunder, the bail petition

of the appellant - accused sought in respect of Crime

No.7/2023 of Kodihalli Police Station for the offences under

Sections 363, 342, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'IPC')

Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 (for short hereinafter referred to as

'POCSO Act') and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes

and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

NC: 2023:KHC:33138 CRL.A No. 1454 of 2023

(for short hereinafter referred to as "the SC/ST Act"), came

to be rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant - accused and

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1

- State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2

remained absent and un-represented.

3. Case of the prosecution is that, the mother of the victim

girl has filed a complaint stating that her daughter - victim

girl who went to answer the second call of nature did not

return and they searched for her, could not trace out her. As

the matter is of respect and honour of the family, they did

not bring to the notice of anybody else and on 20.01.2023,

the minor girl herself returned to the house along with one

Smt.Bhagyamma of her village and on enquiry, the victim girl

told her mother that the appellant - accused who is the

husband of one Smt.Sumithra who is her near relative had

taken her alluring and assuring that he would marry her and

look after her, by closing her mouth in a tempo and

threatened her to take her life and on the same night, he

NC: 2023:KHC:33138 CRL.A No. 1454 of 2023

forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. The victim girl has

further revealed that the appellant - accused took her to a

lodge on 08.01.2023 and stayed in the said lodge till

16.01.2023 and during that time, he had sexual intercourse

with her forcibly and on 16.01.2023, he brought her from the

said lodge to Modadonda village and kept her in a rented

house. When the appellant - accused had gone out for

work, the victim girl came out of the house and met

Smt.Bhagyamma, the resident of her village and came along

with her to the village. The said complaint came to be

registered in Crime No.7/2023 of Kodihalli Police Station.

The appellant - accused came to be arrested on 23.01.2023

and he is in judicial custody.

4. The police, after investigation, filed the charge sheet

against the appellant - accused for the offences under

Sections 363, 342, 376 and 506 of IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of

the SC/ST Act and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

5. The appellant - accused filed Crl.Misc.No.460/2023

seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by the

NC: 2023:KHC:33138 CRL.A No. 1454 of 2023

impugned order dated 27.06.2023. The appellant - accused

has challenged the said order in this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant - accused would

contend that there is a delay in filing the complaint. There

are contradictions with regard to the date on which the victim

girl went missing. In the complaint, date of missing is

14.01.2023, but as per the statement of the victim, the date

of missing is 07.01.2023. The F.S.L report is in the negative.

There is a civil dispute pending between the accused and the

family members of the victim. As the charge sheet is filed,

the appellant - accused is not required for custodial

interrogation. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal and

grant bail to the appellant - accused.

7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1 - State would contend that the victim girl is

aged 15 years and she belongs to Scheduled Caste. The date

of birth of the victim girl is 08.06.2007. The appellant -

accused promising to marry her, abducted her and had

forcible sexual intercourse with her. The appellant - accused

NC: 2023:KHC:33138 CRL.A No. 1454 of 2023

kept the victim girl in a lodge between 08.01.2023 to

16.01.2023 and there also, he had forcible sexual intercourse

with the victim girl. The victim girl in her statement recorded

under Section 164 of Cr.P.C has clearly stated all these

aspects. The medical report reveal that the hymen is torn

and there is an old tear and the doctor who examined her

has opined that there is possibility of sexual act. The doctor

at the time of examination has stated that she has taken

bath and she had been examined on 21.01.2023 ie., after

five days and she returned to the village and therefore, the

clothes worn by her which were sent for FSL did not contain

any seminal stains. The prosecution has collected the lodge

register, rent agreement and prepared mahazars of the

spots. The appellant - accused being a married man

abducted the victim girl aged 15 years belonging to the

Scheduled Caste and had forcible sexual intercourse with her.

The charge sheet material show prima facie case against the

appellant - accused for the offences alleged against him.

Considering all these aspects, learned Sessions Judge has

NC: 2023:KHC:33138 CRL.A No. 1454 of 2023

rightly rejected the bail application. With this, he prayed to

dismiss the appeal.

8. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

appellant - accused and learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1 - State, this Court has gone

through the impugned order and the charge sheet material.

9. The date of birth of the victim girl as per her school

record is 08.06.2007. Hence, she is aged about 15 years as

on the date of the incident. The statement of the victim girl

reveal that wife of the appellant - accused is relative of the

victim girl and she used to go to his house and look after the

children of the appellant - accused. The said aspect itself

goes to show that the appellant - accused is a married man

having wife and children. The statement of the victim girl

recorded by the police under Section 164 of Cr.P.C will clearly

show that this appellant - accused forcibly took the victim

girl in a vehicle and had forcible sexual intercourse with her

on 07.01.2023 and also between 08.01.2023 to 16.01.2023

in a lodge. The Investigating Officer has recorded the

NC: 2023:KHC:33138 CRL.A No. 1454 of 2023

statement of the lodge Manager and Landlord in whose house

the appellant - accused and the victim girl stayed. The

appellant - accused being a married man, to satisfy his lust

has abducted the victim girl and committed forcible sexual

intercourse on her. The doctor who examined the victim girl

has noted that there is a tear of her hymen. The charge

sheet material show prima facie case against the appellant -

accused for the offences alleged against him. Considering all

these aspects, the Sessions / Special Court has rightly

rejected the bail petition.

10. There are no grounds made out for setting-aside the

impugned order and grant of bail. Hence, the appeal is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GH