Seriousness of offences against a minor victim and the likelihood of accused absconding or tampering with evidence are significant factors in bail decisions.

JUDGMENT

B.A.Patil, J. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioneraccused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail in Crime No.150/2018 of Hennur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 344, 366, 376, 506 of IPC and Sections 4 and 8 of POCSO Act.

2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri.K.Elangoran on behalf of Sri.Chandrahasa Rai B. for the petitioner- accused No.1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.R.D.Renukaradhya for the respondent-State. Though notice has been served to respondent No.2- complainant, there is no representation on behalf of the complainant.

3. The gist of the complaint is that the granddaughter of the complainant aged about 15 years came to her house about two months back and was staying with the complainant. Petitioner-accused No.1 who is none other than the relative of the complainant came to the house and was closely associated with the victim and in that light on 12.5.2018 at about 6.00 p.m. when the complainant had gone to work, he took the victim under the pretext of taking her to her parents house and has not returned to the house and subsequently enquiry has been made and a missing complaint has been filed.

4. Investigation was conducted and victim girl was secured on 30.5.2018. In her statement she has disclosed that on 12.5.2018 at about 6.00 p.m. she had gone with the accused believing that he would take her to her parents house, but he took her to Mysuru and stayed in a lodge for three days and he had forcibly sexually assaulted against her wish and will, thereafter he took her to Madikeri and stayed there till 29.5.2018, that time also he had forcible sexual assault with her. On the basis of the statement, after investigation charge sheet has been filed.

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 that already accused No.2 has been released on bail. On the ground of parity, petitioneraccused No.1 is also entitled to be released on bail. It is his further submission that though kidnapping has taken place on 12.5.2018, the complaint has been registered on 30.5.2018 belatedly. It is his further submission that the petitioner-accused is none other than the relative of the complainant and a false complaint has been registered. It is his further submission that as per the report of the doctor the victim is aged between 15 to 18 years and she was matured and she has been already got married to another person. He is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner-accused No.1 on bail.

6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate it clearly goes to show that the victim was a minor girl and she has been eloped from the custody of the complainant and has been taken to a lodge and there she has been sexually assaulted and thereafter taken the victim to Madikeri, there also she has been sexually assaulted. It is his further submission that the petitioner-accused No.1 has committed offence as against a minor victim girl. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.

8. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and other material it indicates that petitioner-accused took the victim to Mysuru and there he has sexually assaulted and thereafter he has taken to Madikeri and there also she has been sexually assaulted. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the radiology report of the Bowring Hospital indicates that the age of the victim was between 16 to 18 years, on perusal of the records it indicates that she was a minor. Under such circumstances, the petitioner-accus