1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4664 OF 2020

BETWEEN

Mr. Siddaraju,
S/o. Shankarappa,
Aged about 24 years,
Occ: Private Employee,
R/at G.Nagenahalli,
Koratagere Taluk,
Tumakur District-572129.
…Petitioner
(By Sri Balakrishna M.R., Advocate)

AND

1. The State by Rajgopalnagara Police Station,

Bengaluru City represented by
Its State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru-560001.

2. Smt. Rangamma,
W/o. Lakshmeeshaiah,
Aged about 47 years,
R/at No.203,
12th A Cross, Shivanandanagar,
Hegganahalli,
Bengaluru-560091.
…Respondents
(By Sri K.S.Abhijith, HCGP)
 2

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439

Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.20/2020 registered by Rajagopal Nagar Police
Station, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under
Sections 363, 366 & 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO
Act and Section 4 of Child Marriage Act.

This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day

through video conferencing, the Court made the following :

ORDER

Heard the petitioner’s counsel and the learned High

Court Government Pleader. Respondent No.2 has been

notified and none appears for her.

2. The respondent-police registered FIR against

the petitioner in Crime No.20/2020 for the offence

punishable under Section 363 of IPC and it appears that

later on the offences under Section 366 and 376 of IPC,

Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 4 of Prohibition of

Child Marriage Act were also added.

3. The second respondent made a report to the

police about missing of her niece on 18.01.2020. She

stated that the girl went to the college and did not come

back to the house. The girl has given statement under

 3

Section 164 Cr.P.C. It shows that the petitioner is none

other than the son of her relative and that she wanted to

marry him. But the girl’s father, her senior uncle and

senior aunt did not agree for the marriage. For this reason

the girl went voluntarily with the petitioner and got

married. So the statement shows that the girl married the

petitioner voluntarily. The age of the girl is 17 years. But

for the age of the girl, there is nothing to indicate that it

was forcible abduction. Based on the evidence the trial

Court has to come to a proper conclusion whether the

offence is madeout or not. At this stage, I don’t find any

prima-facie materials for denying bail. Hence the

following:

ORDER

Petition is allowed.

The petitioner is ordered to be released

on bail in connection with Crime No.20/2020
registered by Rajagopalanagara Police Station,
Bengaluru City on his executing a bond for a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)
 4

and furnishing one surety for the likesum to

the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. The
petitioner is also subjected to following
conditions:

i. He shall not tamper with the evidence.

ii. He shall not directly or indirectly threaten or

induce the witnesses

iii. He shall regularly appear before the Court

for trial, without fail.

Sd/-
JUDGE

Kmv/-