Karnataka High Court
Justin vs State By Karnataka on 5 January, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:566
CRL.A No. 2131 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2131 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
JUSTIN
S/O MICHAEL JOHN
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
30, NEHRU NAGAR
2ND CROSS, SAGARA
SHIVAMOGGA
KARNATAKA - 577 401
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI B MANOJ, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI LALITH KUMAR R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA
1. STATE BY KARNATAKA
MURTHY RAJASHRI PEENYA POLICE STATION
Location: HIGH
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY SPP
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BENGALURU - 560 009.
2. SMT. GANGAMMA
W/O RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT MANGALAMMA BUILDING
SLN ENCLAVE, ANDRAHALLI MAIN ROAD
KARIHOBANAHALLI, NAGASANDRA POST
BENGALURU - 560 073.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. N ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.09.2023
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:566
CRL.A No. 2131 of 2023
PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.7759/2023 BY THE ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-II BANGALORE, TO RELEASE
THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN SPL.C.No.922/2023 REGISTERED BY
PEENYA POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 363, 376,
506 OF IPC AND SECTION 4, 5(L)(M)(N), 6, 17 OF POCSO ACT
AND SECTION 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
FTSC-II BANGALORE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by appellant-accused No.1 praying
to set aside the order dated 05.09.2023 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.7759/2023 by the Additional City Civil Sessions
Judge, FTSC-II, Bengaluru, whereunder the bail petition of
this appellant-accused No.1 sought in respect of crime
No.90/2023 of Pinya Police Station for the offence
punishable under Sections 363, 376, 506 of Indian Penal
Code (for short hereinafter referred to as `IPC') and
Sections 4, 5(L)(M)(N), 6, 17 of the Protection of Child from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012(for short hereinafter referred to
as `POCSO'), came to be rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for appellant-accused No.1
and learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Inspite of service of
NC: 2024:KHC:566
notice respondent No.2-complainant remained absent and
unrepresented.
3. Respondent No.2 has filed a missing complaint of
the victim girl stating this appellant-accused No.1 might
have kidnapped her. The said complainant came to be
registered in Crime No.90/2023 of Pinya Police Station for
the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. The
appellant-accused No.1 and victim girl came to be secured
and after investigation charge sheet came to be registered
against this appellant-accused No.1 for the aforesaid
offences including offences punishable under Section 3(2)(v-
a) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
4. The case of the prosecution is that this appellant-
accused No.1 induced the victim girl and took her to lodge
and he had sexual intercourse with her. Appellant-accused
No.1 arrested on 24.03.2023, he is in judicial custody. The
appellant-accused No.1 filed Crl.Misc.No.7759/2023 seeking
bail and the same came to be rejected by the impugned
NC: 2024:KHC:566
order dated 05.09.2023. The said order is challenged in this
appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.1
would that there are monetary transactions between the
mother of the victim girl and appellant-accused No.1 in that
regard false case came to be registered against this
appellant-accused No.1. Even though the mother of the
victim girl received information through phone that victim
girl is with the appellant-accused No.1 on 21.03.2023 and
she filed complaint on the next day. The appellant-accused
No.1 is aged about 19 years. As charge sheet is filed this
appellant-accused No.1 is not required for custodial
interrogation. Without considering all these aspects, the
learned Sessions Court/Judge has passed impugned order
which requires interference by this Court. With this, he prays
to allow the appeal and grant of bail to the appellant-
accused No.1.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1-State would contend that
NC: 2024:KHC:566
evidence of the victim girl and her mother are recorded
wherein it is stated that this appellant-accused No.1
abducting the victim girl and having sexual intercourse with
her. The offences alleged against this appellant-accused
No.1 are serious offences. Considering the said aspects,
learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the bail petition
of this appellant-accused No.1. With this, she prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
7. Having heard learned counsel for appellant-
accused No.1 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - State
this Court has gone through the impugned order and charge
sheet materials.
8. Victim girl is aged about 11 years and she has been
examined by the doctor on securing her on 24.03.2023 and
the doctor found abrasions on her upper lip. The doctor
who examined the victim girl has stated that there are no
signs of sexual intercourse, however there is sign of physical
injury over upper lip. Possibility of an act like that of sexual
intercourse could not be ruled out. Even though the victim
NC: 2024:KHC:566
girl-PW-2 stated in her evidence that appellant-accused No.1
had sexual intercourse with her. But in her statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C there is no evidence
regarding this appellant-accused No.1 having sexual
intercourse with her. There is only allegation against this
appellant is that biting on the lip of the victim girl and
touching her private parts. Therefore, at this stage it cannot
be said whether offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC
and 4 of POCSO is attracted or not. As the charge sheet is
filed, appellant-accused No.1 is not required for custodial
interrogation. The appellant-accused No.1 is aged about 19
years if he is continued in the prison he will come in contact
of hardened criminals. Without considering all these aspects
learned Special Judge has passed the impugned order which
requires interference by this Court.
In the result, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
NC: 2024:KHC:566
The impugned order dated 05.09.2023 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.7759/2023 by the Additional City Civil Sessions
Judge, FTSC-II, Bengaluru is set aside. The bail petition of
appellant-accused No.1 stands allowed. Appellant-accused
No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in crime No.90/2023
of Pinya Police Station subject to the following conditions:
i. Appellant-accused No.1 shall execute a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety
for the likesum to the satisfaction of the
trial Court.
ii. Appellant-accused No.1 shall not tamper
the prosecution witnesses.
iii. Appellant-accused No.1 shall attend the
Court on all dates of hearing unless
exempted and cooperate in speedy
disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DSP
