✦ Karnataka High Court

SRI. SACHIN G.M v. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Criminal Petition No. 10861 of 2023SESSION3 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Withdrawn

is dismissed as withdrawn

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 88. In the light of the above submission, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Judgment

SRI. SACHIN G.M., S/O MAHADEVA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT GULUVINA ATHIGUPPE VILLAGE, K.R. NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 602. PRESENTLY THE PETITIONER IS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY. (BY SRI. NITISH K.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER Location: High Court of Karnataka

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPTD. BY PSI RAMANAGAR WOMEN PS, RAMANAGAR - 562 159, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

2.

VICTIM, REPTD. BY HER MOTHER, SMT. RAJAMMA, W/O SHIVARAJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT BASAVAPURA VILLAGE, ULLALLI HOBLI, JANJANGUDU TALUK, - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:5825 CRL.P No. 10861 of 2023 MYSORE DISTRICT. ALSO R/AT IJOOR, WATER TANK ROAD, RAMANAGAR TOWN AND DISTRICT - 562 159. (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.72/2023 (SPL.CASE (POCSO) NO.108/2023), OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376(2)(i), 376(3) AND 363 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT RAMANAGAR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner/sole accused on bail in Crime No.72/2023 of Ramanagara Women Police Station, pending in Special Case (POCSO) No.108/2023, on the file of 1st Additional District and Session Judge at Ramanagar.

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent-State and perused the material on record. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5825 CRL.P No. 10861 of 2023

3.

Charge sheet is filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, Section 376(2)(i), 376(3) and 363 of IPC.,

4.

It is the case of prosecution that the petitioner has kidnapped a minor girl on 19.06.2023 and took her to Dharmasthala etc., and committed penetrative sexual assault on her. Petitioner was arrested on 27.06.2023.

5.

The statement of the victim has been recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. She has refused to undergo medical examination but, history has been furnished. According to the prosecution, the date of birth of the victim is 06.02.2008 and therefore, she is a minor. The petitioner's counsel has disputed her age. He has contended that the victim was a major as on the date of alleged offence.

6.

The charge sheet is already filed and cognizance has been taken, but victim's evidence is yet to be recorded. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:5825 CRL.P No. 10861 of 2023

7.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought permission of the Court to withdraw the petition with a liberty for the petitioner to file a fresh petition before the Sessions Court after the victim's evidence is recorded.

Operative part

8.

In the light of the above submission, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

9.

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to move the Sessions Court afresh, once the victim's evidence is completed.

10.

Considering that the charge sheet is already filed and accused is in judicial custody since 27.06.2023, the learned Session Judge is directed to record the evidence of the victim, expeditiously keeping in view the relevant provisions of the POSCO Act. Sd/- JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34 CT:SNN

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: is dismissed as withdrawn

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 161, 164, 439; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — ss. 4, 6; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 363, 376(2)(i), 376(3).

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Criminal Petition No. 10861 of 2023). ← Search more judgments