The court emphasized the need for an independent analysis of each case, the consideration of the provisions of the POCSO Act, and the heinous nature of the offenses while granting bail.

JUDGMENT

V. Srishananda, J. - Heard Sri. Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner- State and Sri. Vinod Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records.

2. This petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

"Wherefore, the Petitioner-State most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

(a) Allow this Criminal Petition; and

(b) Cancel the Order of bail by setting aside the Order dated 29.07.2020 passed on the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar; in Crime No. 81/2020

(c) Direct that the accused/respondent be arrested and committed to custody;

(d) Pass such other order/s, deems fit by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice and equity."

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

A complaint filed by Smt. Thayamma W/o Ningaia on 23.06.2020 contending that on 25.05.2020 when herself and her husband and the victim girl were sleeping in the house, at about 10.30 p.m., somebody knocked the door and her husband said the victim girl to find out who has knocked the door, at that juncture, the victim girl got up and opened the door. Then, three persons by name Siddaraju, Chennalinganahalli Sagar and an unknown person forcibly entered into the house and Siddaraju pulled the victim girl and dragged her out of the house closing her mouth. Immediately, herself and her husband raised alarm and also questioned Siddaraju and others as to why they are dragging away the victim. At that juncture, Siddaraju and others pushed her husband and abducted the victim girl in a cement colour car. The complainant and her husband complained about the said act of Siddaraju to his parents. Further, since Siddaraju is a relative, they tried to settle the issue amongst them. Despite lapse of about a month, there was no information as to where, Siddaraju has taken away the victim girl and therefore, the complainant approached the police.

4. Based on the complaint, the Hanur Police, Chamaraja Nagar District registered a case in Crime No. 81/2020 initially for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO Act' for short) read with Section 34 of IPC.

5. After thorough investigation, the Investigation Agency filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act against the respondent herein and others.

6. During the investigation, the accused was arrested and he was sent to judicial custody. The accused applied for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

7. Learned District Judge by order dated 29.07.2020, has granted bail noting the fact that at the time of considering the bail application, initially the police have invoked only Section 12 of the POCSO Act and subsequent thereto, Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act, were invoked. Learned judge noted that there is a suspicion with respect to paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 of the order of the learned District judge, which has been observed as under:

"11. Be that as it may. At the time of registering the FIR, Section 363 IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 r/w 34 IPC were invoked. However, after the lapse of about 15 days, the complainant police has sought permission from this Court to invoke provisions of Section 376 IPC and Section 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act. This aspect further leads to suspicion w.r.t. the genuineness of the investigation, more so in light of there being a substantial delay of nearly one month in lodging the complaint. In fact, there was no impediment for the complainant or her husband who are alleged to be eye witnesses to the kidnap incident per se, to lodge a complaint of kidnap atleast, at the first instance. However, as already discussed supra the complaint was lodged only on 23.03.2020.

12. This Court is aware of the fact that offences punishable U.s. 3 of the POCSO