High CourtsSingle Bench

Shrinivas @ Sina vs State Of Karnataka & Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 15 April 2021 · Citation: (2021) 04 KAR CK 0093

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Natarajan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 164, 439 · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 7, 8, 9(m) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 342, 506 · Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 3636 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

39 paragraphs · 773 words

K. Natarajan, J

1.

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting regular bail in Crime No.27/2020 pending on the file of

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Special Case No.153/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 9(m) of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 506 and 342 of IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2.

Respondent No.2 served unrepresented.

3.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State.

4.

The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2, mother of the victim filed a complaint before the Police on 11.2.2020 alleging that her sister-in-

law Nagamma told her through phone that her daughter is in trouble and also asked her to come home immediately. When she came to home, she was

frightened and when she asked her daughter as to what has happened, her daughter told her that this petitioner gave her Rs.10/- and asked her to

bring curd packet and when she brought and gave it to him, he asked her to come inside the home, latched the door and forcibly asked her to lay

down. She hurried to go out of the home and at that time he touched her hands and also chest. When she started crying, he closed her mouth and also

threatened her. After registering the case, the Police arrested the petitioner on 12.02.2020 and remanded to the judicial custody. The petitioner has

approached the Sessions Court for granting bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the case

by the Police. The petitioner and the complainant are neighbours staying in a rented house and there was a frequent quarrel between them and the

land lord asked both of them to vacate and due to which a false complaint has been registered. He is in custody for more than 14 months. He is ready

to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for granting bail.

6.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected the bail petition and contended that the statement under Section 164 of

Cr.P.C. clearly reveals that he has tried to molestate the victim. Hence, prayed for rejecting the bail petition.

7.

Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, which shows that on the complaint of the mother of the victim, the Police registered a

case. The alleged offences are under Sections 7, 8, 9(m) of the POCSO Act, Section 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The

allegation is that the petitioner is said to have given Rs.10/- to the victim to bring a curd packet and when she brought and gave it to him, he asked her

to come inside the home, latched the door and forcibly asked her to lay down. She hurried to go out of the home and at that time he touched her hands

and chest. When she started crying, he closed her mouth and also threatened her and sent out. Learned counsel also submits that there is no injury on

the body of the victim as per the medical report. However, the investigation is already completed and charge-sheet has been filed. The trial is yet to

commence. The alleged offence is though non bailable but he is in custody for more than 14 months. Therefore, I am of the view by imposing certain

conditions, if the bail is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case. Hence, I pass the following

ORDER

Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed.

The trial Court is directed to release the petitioner-accused on bail in Crime No.27/2020 pending on the file of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,

Bengaluru in Special Case No.153/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 9(m) of POCSO Act, Section 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)

(w) (i)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act, subject to the following conditions:

(i) Petitioner-accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a surety for the likesum to

the satisfaction of the trial Court;

(ii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;

(iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly;

(iv) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the trial Court;

(v) Petitioner shall take trial without causing any delay.