IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J.
Vijay Suresh Jadhav - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 102525 of 2022
Decided On : 26-09-2022
Bail - Criminal Procedure - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sec. 439 - The Indian Penal Code, Sec. 376 - The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Ss. 4 and 6
Fact of the Case:
The accused filed a bail petition under Sec. 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking bail in a case registered for offences under Sec. 376 of IPC and Ss. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act. The victim, a minor girl, alleged that the accused, her maternal uncle, had sexual intercourse with her, resulting in pregnancy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the victim girl had stated in her police statement that the accused had sexual intercourse with her, leading to pregnancy. However, in her statement recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C., she stated that the accused was not responsible for her pregnancy. The court also noted that the victim girl's marriage was fixed with the accused and that she is of the age of understanding the consequences of her acts. Considering these factors, the court granted bail to the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of sexual intercourse by the accused, the victim girl's conflicting statements, and the circumstances of the victim girl's marriage to the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the victim girl's conflicting statements, her age, and the circumstances of her marriage to the accused in granting bail to the accused.
Final Decision: The petition filed under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the accused was granted bail with certain conditions.
JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed by the sole accused under Sec. 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ' Cr.P.C .', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.100/2022 of Marihal Police Station, Belagavi, registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 376 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ' IPC ', for brevity) and Ss. 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012(hereinafter referred to as the 'POCSO Act', for brevity).
2. The case of the prosecution is that, respondent No.2, who is working as the Supervisor of Anganwadi in Belagavi Rural, has lodged the complaint stating that, on 9/6/2022, she received a phone call from unknown person that one minor girl, aged 17 years, resident of Kambaar Galli, Sulebhavi village, marriage was being performed and she along with other officials informed Marihal Police and visited the spot and rescued the victim girl and produced before the District Child Welfare Committee and the Committee enquired her in detail and sent her to the Child Home, Savadatti. After her medical examination, they revealed that, she was pregnant and again she was sent before the Committee on 15/6/2022 and she was enquired, at that time, she revealed that her marriage was fixed with the petitioner/accused and he committed sexual intercourse on her on 3/5/2022 and because of that she became pregnant. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.100/2022 of Marihal Police Station, Belagavi for the offences under Sec. 376 of IPC and Ss. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act. During the course of the investigation, the petitioner/accused came to be arrested on 11/7/2022 and he is in judicial custody. The police recorded the statement of the victim girl and the statement of the victim girl under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. has been recorded. The petitioner filed Crl.Misc.No.1067/2022 and the same came to be rejected by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-FTSC-1, Belagavi by order dtd. 23/8/2022. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1- State. Respondent No.2 had appeared physically on the previous date and prayed not to grant bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is no complaint by the parents of the victim girl. Her mother, who was arrayed as respondent No.3, before the Sessions Court had given no objection for grant of bail to the petitioner.
It is his further submission that, in the statement of the victim girl recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C., there is no allegation of any sexual intercourse by this petitioner on the victim girl. The petitioner/accused is a close relative of the victim girl. It is his further submission that, as investigation is over, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. It is his further submission that the victim girl was aged 17 years and her marriage was fixed with the accused and the date of their marriage was on 10/6/2022. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the victim girl in her statement recorded by the police has specifically stated that this petitioner had sexual intercourse with her and therefore she became pregnant. The Doctor, who conducted examination of the victim girl has noted that she is pregnant and there is evidence of sexual intercourse. The victim girl is aged 17 years as per her school records and her date of birth is 2/9/2004. Therefore, there is prima face case against the petitioner for the offences alleged against him. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.
6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records.
7. The date of birth of the victim girl is 2/9/2
The court considered the victim's conflicting statements, her age, and the circumstances of her marriage in granting bail to the accused, highlighting the importance of evaluating the totality of cir....
Prima facie evidence, threat to witnesses, and medical condition as grounds for bail.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of considering the specific circumstances of the case, including the accused's cooperation with the investigation and the absence of criminal antecedent....
The gravity of the offense, evidence of forcible sexual acts, and the victim's age are crucial factors in determining bail applications in cases involving minors and sexual offenses.
Pre-trial incarceration is not rule.
The court established that under the Cr.P.C., bail may be granted when the nature of allegations does not warrant continued custody, especially when the investigation is complete.
The timing of the sexual acts in relation to the marriage and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case influenced the court's decision to grant bail.
The court considered the victim's consistent allegations, medical evidence, and pending DNA report in rejecting the bail petition.
Bail application – Bail can be granted where charge-sheet is filed and accuse is not required for further custodial interrogation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.