Case title: SHRI. SRINIVASA S.K., VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case no: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11454 OF 2023
Order on: 21 May, 2024
Quorum: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
Fact of the case:
The case involves, The petitioner Shri Srinivasa S.K., aged about 25 years, who sought bail under Section 439 of the CrPC, of Bagepalli Police Station in Chikkaballapura District. The charges against the petitioner include: a) Offence punishable under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). b) Violations of Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). c) Contraventions of Sections 9 and 10 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act. The complaint was lodged by Smt. Anusubayi, alleging that the petitioner induced a minor girl into marriage at a temple and subsequently sexually assaulted her, leading to her pregnancy.
Legal provisions:
Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the offence of rape where the perpetrator is in a position of authority or trust over the victim.
Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): These sections provide for stringent punishment for sexual offences against children, including provisions for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
Sections 9 and 10 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act: These sections prohibit the solemnization of child marriages and prescribe penalties for those involved in such marriages.
Contentions of Appellant:
The petitioner argued that he married the victim with bona fide intentions and under the misconception that she was of legal age. It was contended that the victim’s hostile stance during the trial supported the petitioner’s claim that the marriage was entered into without knowledge of her minority status. The petitioner emphasized his role as the earning member of his family and his continued judicial custody since October 12, 2022. He assured the court of his willingness to comply with any conditions imposed upon him if granted bail.
Contentions of Respondents:
The respondent opposed the bail petition, stating that despite the victim turning hostile, she had become pregnant, indicating the amount of sexual assault, which include rape and violations of the POCSO Act and the Child Marriage Restraint Act. It was argued that the victim’s age at the time of marriage was minor, thus violating the Child Marriage Restraint Act. The respondent highlighted the seriousness of the charges against the petitioner, including rape and offences under the POCSO Act. The respondent urged that the court to deny bail, emphasizing the potential risk posed by the petitioner’s release.
Court analysis& Judgement:
The court acknowledged the marriage between the petitioner and the victim but noted the petitioner’s claim that it occurred under a mistaken belief about the victim’s age. Considering the victim’s hostility during trial proceedings and her support for the petitioner’s version of events, the court found merit in the petitioner’s contention. The court considered the seriousness of the charges against the petitioner but ultimately focused on the circumstances surrounding the marriage and the victim’s stance. Emphasizing the petitioner’s innocence due to the misconception of the victim’s age, the court granted bail with certain conditions to ensure compliance and prevent further offences. The court imposed conditions including a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and surety, prohibition from similar offences, mandatory appearance at all court hearings, and non-interference with prosecution witnesses.
Therefore, the court allowed the bail petition, considering the petitioner’s innocence and compliance with conditions as mitigating factors in granting relief.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh
