High Court of Karnataka Grants Bail to Accused in POCSO and SC/ST Act Case — Petitioner Enlarged on Bail with Conditions. Court Held That Petitioner Is Entitled to Bail Under Section 439 CrPC for Offences Under Sections 448, 504, 305 IPC, Section 12 POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 135
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Somashekar, was the accused in Spl.C.No.279/2023 pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Hassan, for offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 305 of IPC, Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Atrocities Act), arising out of Crime No.67/2023 registered by Sakaleshpura Rural Police Station, Hassan District. The petitioner filed a criminal petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking bail. The court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) for respondent no.1 (State). Respondent no.2/defacto complainant was served but remained unrepresented. The court, after considering the submissions and the material on record, found that the petitioner was entitled to be enlarged on bail. The court ordered the petitioner to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including not tampering with prosecution witnesses, not inducing any witness, appearing before the court regularly, and not committing similar offences. The petition was accordingly allowed.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Bail - Section 439 CrPC - Entitlement to Bail - Petitioner/accused sought bail in a case involving offences under IPC, POCSO Act, and SC/ST Act - Court considered the nature of allegations, prima facie case, and custody period - Held that the petitioner is entitled to bail subject to conditions (Paras 1-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner/accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No.67/2023 for offences under Sections 448, 504, 305 IPC, Section 12 of POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused shall be enlarged on bail in Spl.C.No.279/2023 pending before the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Hassan, for offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 305 of IPC, Section 12 of POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, arising out of Crime No.67/2023 registered by Sakaleshpura Rural Police Station, Hassan District, subject to executing a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court, and subject to conditions: (i) petitioner shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses; (ii) petitioner shall not induce or threaten any witness; (iii) petitioner shall appear before the trial court regularly; (iv) petitioner shall not involve in similar offences.

Law Points

  • Bail under Section 439 CrPC
  • Prima facie case
  • POCSO Act Section 12
  • SC/ST Act Section 3(2)(va)
  • IPC Sections 448
  • 504
  • 305
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (KAR) (10) 51

CRL.P No. 7421 of 2023

2023-10-11

S Vishwajith Shetty

NC: 2023:KHC:37164

Shetty Deepak (for petitioner), Sowmya R (HCGP for respondent no.1)

Somashekar

The State by Rural Police Station Authorities, Sakaleshpura; Sunanda

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal bail petition under Section 439 CrPC

Remedy Sought

Enlargement of the petitioner/accused on bail in Spl.C.No.279/2023

Filing Reason

Petitioner/accused sought bail for offences under Sections 448, 504, 305 IPC, Section 12 POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner's counsel argued for bail HCGP for respondent no.1 opposed the bail

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC, considering the nature of allegations and the fact that the petitioner was in custody. The court imposed conditions to ensure the petitioner's presence and to prevent tampering with evidence.

Judgment Excerpts

Accused in Spl.C.No.279/2023 pending before the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Hassan, for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 305 of IPC, Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, arising out of Crime No.67/2023 registered by Sakaleshpura Rural Police Station, Hassan District, is before this Court under Section 439 of Cr.PC. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for respondent no.1. Petition is allowed.

Procedural History

The petitioner/accused filed a criminal petition under Section 439 CrPC before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru seeking bail in Spl.C.No.279/2023 pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Hassan, arising out of Crime No.67/2023 registered by Sakaleshpura Rural Police Station, Hassan District. The court heard the parties and passed the order on 11.10.2023.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 439
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 448, 504, 305
  • Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): 12
  • Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act): 3(2)(va)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal of Daily Wage Employees in Unfair Labour Practice Case — Employer's Failure to Produce Attendance Records Leads to Adverse Inference. The court held that non-production of attendance registers by the employer under S...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition for Letters of Administration Due to Lack of Jurisdiction and Non-Compliance with Probate Requirements. Petitioner failed to establish that the deceased was domiciled in India and that the will was validly execute...