VASANTH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 370 and 376 of IPC and Section 4 and 8 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act and Secs. 9,10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 registered in respondent - Arasikere Town police station Crime No.58/2017.

(2.) Brief facts of the case is that the complainant is the mother of the victim who was not seen since 29.09.2016. The complaint was lodged on 27.04.2017 wherein the complainant - mother states that her daughter- victim was not seen and she kept quite that she would return. For the period of six months, she did not lodge complaint. Meanwhile, the mother received telephonic calls on 18th, 19th and 20th March 2017 from a No.9631811020 to her mobile no. 09636802714 by her daughter - victim, who was at the other end and when the complainant asked her regarding her whereabouts, she disconnected the calls from the other end. Thus, a case came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC and later on being arrested, the offence punishable under Sections 366, 370, 376 IPC and Section 400 POCSO Act and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. Thus, it is claimed by the complainant because of her poverty she was working in garments and on perusal of the statement by the victim, she is said to have stated that accused nos. 2 and 3 are the husband and wife. However, the name of husband of accused no.2 is mentioned as Vasantha and not as 'Vasantha Kumar'. Thus, the case of the prosecution is that the victim was lured and enticed by accused no.1 and thereafter, she was advised to come out of the house during the absence of her mother and all of them went to different places. Finally, it is stated that she was married to accused no.4. Thus the complainant - mother lodged a complaint against the missing of her daughter after 6 months and on the basis of the said complaint, a case came to be registered for kidnapping. Incidentally, the offensive portion or kidnapping or other offences, are not forth coming in the complaint. Police have also invoked Sections 366A, 370, 376 IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner married accused no.4 - Karanidhan and the petitioner in this case is the facing the charge that he had joined his wife in kidnapping the victim-girl. However, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if, the petitioner is enlarged on bail, however, the apprehension could be resolved by imposing conditions: