IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2512/2019 Between:
Manikanta V., S/o Venkatesh, Aged about 21 years, R/at Sreenivasappa’s House, Near Kashivishwanatha Temple, 8th Cross, B. Chennasandra, Bangalore – 43.
And also at Manikanta V., S/o Venkatesh S., Aged about 20 years, R/at Harate, Kolar. … Petitioner (By Sri Shankarappa, Advocate) And:
State by Ramamurthy Nagar Police, Bangalore, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore – 560 001. … Respondent (By Sri K.P. Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No.558/2018 of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence p/u/s 366, 376 of IPC and Sections 5(L) and 6 of POCSO Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER Petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.558/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC and Sections 5(L) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was filed by the mother of the victim stating that her daughter had gone to college on 17.12.2018 and did not return back. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered, investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. It is stated that during the process of investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 28.12.2018 and has been in custody since then.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the victim had voluntarily gone along with the petitioner and this fact ought to be taken note of. It is further stated that the victim’s statement recorded under Section 161 as well as under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. clearly brings out the fact that the victim had gone voluntarily along with the petitioner.
4. On perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, it comes out that the victim had married the petitioner on 21.12.2018 and that there was love affair between the petitioner and the victim. It further comes out that the victim had forced the petitioner to take her with him. It would not be appropriate to comment conclusively as regards the weight to be attached to the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and its impact on the trial. However, for the present, it could be noted that there was a consensual relationship between the petitioner and the victim. The Victim does not support the prosecution in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. This fact would be a mitigating factor and ought to be taken note of. Proof of offence is a matter for trial.
5. Taking note of the aforestated facts and also the stand of the victim and the statement recorded before the Magistrate, petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. The presumption as available under Section 29 of the POCSO Act would come into play only if the primary facts constituting the offence are proved, which is also a matter for trial.
6. Accordingly, the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.558/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC and Sections 5(L) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate for the expeditious disposal of the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(iv) In the event of change of address, the petitioner to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(v) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioner, shall result in cancellation of bail.
Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE VP