IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT DHARWAD
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J.
Praveen Bhimrao Avubayagol - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 102079 of 2022
Decided On : 12-08-2022
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - Criminal Procedure - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 438) - The Indian Penal Code (Section 376(1)) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (Sections 4, 6, 8)
Fact of the Case:
The accused filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered for offences under Section 376(1) of the IPC and Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the POCSO Act. The victim girl, aged 17 years 5 months, had voluntarily left with the accused for marriage, leading to the filing of the charge sheet.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were valid grounds for granting anticipatory bail to the accused, subject to certain terms and conditions, as the victim girl's statement did not allege forcible sexual intercourse by the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused should be granted anticipatory bail in a case involving serious offences under the IPC and the POCSO Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the voluntary nature of the victim girl's actions, her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., and the absence of allegations of forcible sexual intercourse by the accused in reaching its decision to grant anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the accused was granted anticipatory bail with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition has been filed by the sole accused under Section 438 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking anticipatory bail in Hukkeri Police Station Crime No. 93/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 376(1) of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the 'POCSO Act' for brevity) and the case is pending in Special Case No. 46/2022 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge FTSC-I, Belagavi.
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that one Sanju has filed complainant stating that his younger sister-victim girl aged 17 years 5 months had been to Belavi village at 4.00 p.m. on 21.07.2021 but did not returned even after 6.00 p.m. and he informed the same to his mother over phone and verified with friends and relatives and could not find her and he thought that she might have been kidnapped by someone and therefore he filed complaint on 23.07.2021 against unknown person which came to be registered in Crime No. 93/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. The victim girl and the accused appeared before the Police on 13.08.2021. The Police recorded the statement of the victim girl and referred her for medical examination. The accused was arrested and produced before the Trial Court on 15.08.2021 but since the Police had failed to comply the guidelines of Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar's case the accused released forthwith. The victim girl has stated in her statement that on 22.07.2021 she voluntarily left with the accused for getting marriage with him and they reached Dharwad and then went to Bengaluru and resided at the house of brother of accused. Based on said statement of the victim girl, the Police filed requisition to include offence punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of POCSO Act. The Police after the investigation filed charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. The Trial Court has issued NBW and therefore the petitioner/accused apprehending his arrest has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 522/2022 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge FTSC-I, Belagavi by order dated 29.06.2022. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that on looking to the statement of the victim girl recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., it is clear that she is in love affair with the petitioner/accused and she voluntarily went along with him to Bengaluru. Even the victim girl refused for medical examination. The victim girl has not alleged any sexual intercourse by the petitioner on her in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. As the charge sheet is filed the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contends that the offence alleged against the petitioner is heinous offence. The charge sheet material shows prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences alleged against him. The victim girl is aged 17 years 5 months as on the date of offence. If the petitioner is granted bail, he will threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge sheet papers.
7. The statement of victim girl has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The victim girl in the said statement has st
The voluntary nature of the victim's actions and the absence of allegations of forcible sexual intercourse by the accused influenced the court's decision to grant anticipatory bail.
The court considered the voluntary nature of the victim's actions, the failure of the prosecution to provide essential evidence, and the victim and her family's express consent for granting anticipat....
The court held that under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, the statutory bar in Section 18 precludes the granting of anticipatory bail when offences under the Act are prima facie established against the accused,....
Anticipatory bail may be granted when investigation is complete, charge sheet is filed, and victim statements support a consensual relationship without evidence of force, satisfying the court that th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner's conduct, such as jumping bail in a related case and being unavailable for trial, can be considered in determining entitlement t....
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.