Karnataka HC Grants Bail To Muruga Mutt Seer In POCSO Case, Says No Adverse Inference Of Influencing Witnesses By Virtue Of His Position
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday granted bail to pontiff of Murugha Mutt of Chitradurga, Dr. Shivamurthy Muruga Sharanaru, accused of sexually abusing two minor girls staying in the hostels run by the Mutt. The seer was arrested under POCSO Act after the girls approached a Mysuru-based NGO Odanadi Seva Samsthe seeking help.A single judge bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said...
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday granted bail to pontiff of Murugha Mutt of Chitradurga, Dr. Shivamurthy Muruga Sharanaru, accused of sexually abusing two minor girls staying in the hostels run by the Mutt. The seer was arrested under POCSO Act after the girls approached a Mysuru-based NGO Odanadi Seva Samsthe seeking help.
A single judge bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said bail cannot be denied merely because accused is an influential person.
"It is no doubt true that accused No.1 is the Chief of a Mutt which has a large number of devotees and followers. His position itself cannot be a reason for drawing an inference that he will try to meddle with the evidence. Mere allegation to this effect cannot be considered if a case for a bail is otherwise made out.”
The seer is charged under sections Sections 376(2)(n), 376(DA), 376(3), 201, 202 and 506 read with Sections 34 and 37 of IPC, Section 5(l) read with Section 6 and Section 17 of the POCSO Act, Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) and Section 3(2)(v)(va) of SC/ST Act, Section 3(f) and Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Since one of the girls belongs to scheduled caste, the provisions of Atrocities Act were invoked.
The relief is subject to his executing two bonds each for Rs.2 ,00,000. “Bail is not an absolute liberty, conditions are always imposed while granting bail. If he misuses the liberty and violates the conditions of bail the same may be considered for cancellation of bail,” it added.
It was argued on the seer's behalf that the allegation made by the victims of other girl inmates being sexually abused on being investigated was negated; the seer did not have actual control over the children; the allegation of assaulting the is against the warden of the hostel; provisions of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act are not applicable and cannot be invoked.
The prosecution opposed the plea saying the accused being the pontiff of the Mutt wields power and influence and if bail is granted, he will try to influence the girls and other witnesses not to depose against him once the trial commences. Further, in the statements given by the girls before the investigator and the Magistrate, it is clearly found that the two girls were subjected to aggravated sexual harassment by accused. Merely for the reason that the medical reports indicate the hymen to be intact, no conclusion can be drawn that the offence had not taken place, it was argued.
The bench said the offences charged against accused were are grave but, the materials collected by the investigator must prima- facie indicate his involvement.
Court also said that provisions of the Atrocities Act are wrongly invoked in the charge sheet just because one of the girls belongs to scheduled caste. It observed “This is a routine procedure that the police are accustomed to register an FIR or file charge sheet for the offences under the Atrocities Act without verifying and applying mind whether the incident in question has taken place in the background of caste-based animosity or atrocity. The materials placed before the court do not indicate the intention of accused No.1 to humiliate or exploit the girls belonging to schedule caste/schedule tribe sexually on the ground of caste factor.”
It added, “If accused No 1 had such an intention to exploit the members of schedule caste or schedule tribe, the girls belonging to those castes would not have been admitted to the hostel. Therefore, so far as the offences under the Atrocities Act mentioned in the charge sheet can be unhesitatingly said to be groundless.”
Noting that a coordinate bench has already held that Section 8(2) of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 cannot be invoked against the accused, it said “As rightly argued by Sri C.V.Nagesh that, Section 8(2) of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 cannot be sustained against accused No.1.”
Referring to the provisions of sexual assault the court said “Medical report has only a corroborative value. But now the indication in the medical report that the hymen of the two girls were intact is to be viewed in the light of the statements of eight other girls who do not complain of sexual harassment and also the statements of the girls A and B under Section 164 o f Cr.P.C.”
It then held “Juxtaposing the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and , statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the statements of other eight girls and medical report about hymen, it can be stated that a doubt really arises in the contents of Section 161 Cr.P.C., statements. These aspects cannot be ignored at this stage.”
Court has however restrained him from entering Chitradurga District till the conclusion of trial in the two cases.
Appearance: Senior Advocate C.V Nagesh, for Advocate Sandeep Patil for petitioner.
Additional State Public Prosecutor B.N.Jagadeesh for R1,R2.
Advocate Srinivasa D C, for R3.
Advocate Deepa J, for R 3 in Crl.P.No.5031/2023.
Citation No. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 426
Case Title: Dr. Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5031 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1230 OF 2023.