IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9142/2017 BETWEEN:
Karanidhan S/o Kethudhan Aged about 30 years R/o Rathadiya Village Panchu post Nako Taluk Bikaner District Rajasthan State-334 803. ... PETITIONER (By Sri Rajesh Rai K, Adv.) AND:
State by Arasikere Town Police Station Represented by the State Public Prosecutor High Court Building High Court Bangalore-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No.58/2017 of Arasikere Town P.S., Hassan District for the offences P/U/Ss 363, 366A, 370, 376 of IPC and Sections 4, 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and Section 9, 10, 11 of Child Marriage Restraint Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the accused No.4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC registered in respondent – police station Crime No.58/2017, subsequently, the alleged offences under sections 366A, 370, 376 of IPC and also Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act were also inserted in the case after completion of investigation and filing the charge sheet.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.4 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments took this Court to the statements of the victim girl given before the police and also before the Court under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and submitted that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he was not having the knowledge that the victim girl was only 17 years old and was a minor. Referring to the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., he has stated that victim herself has stated that she married the present petitioner and she is treated properly in the said house. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner-accused No.4 may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per-contra, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that it is a case of human trafficking. The victim girl has never married the petitioner, but she was taken to Rajasthan with the assistance of accused No.1 Shashirekha. Firstly, she was sold to one person and thereafter to the petitioner herein. He has submitted that a girl belonging to a poor family was taken under the guise of getting an employment by the accused persons and was indulged in having sexual intercourse with so many persons. The manner in which the girl was treated and trafficked clearly shows that she was in a helpless condition and she has been wrongly used by the accused persons. Hence, it is not a case for grant of bail.
5. The victim girl in her statement before the Court as well as before the police has mentioned her age as 17 years, which prima facie at this stage shows that she was a minor girl and on the misrepresentation, the victim girl who has lost her father was taken away by accused No.1 to Rajasthan wherein firstly it is alleged that her marriage was performed with one person and subsequently with the petitioner herein. The alleged offences are also under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner herein that petitioner was not knowing that victim was a minor girl and as such, there is no mistake on his part, cannot be accepted at this stage, as it is a matter for trial.
6. In view of the materials collected during investigation, it is not a fit case for grant of bail in favour of the petitioner.
Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp