IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K. Natarajan, J.
Nagaraju - Appellant
Versus
State By Gonibeedu Police Chikkamagaluru District & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 6321 of 2022
Decided On : 27-07-2022
Anticipatory Bail - POCSO Act - The court granted anticipatory bail to the accused considering the delay in lodging the complaint, the nature of the alleged offences, and the absence of medical evidence. The court imposed certain conditions to ensure the accused's cooperation with the investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of dragging and touching a minor victim, registered under various sections including POCSO Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, considering the delay in lodging the complaint, the nature of the alleged offences, and the absence of medical evidence.
Issues: Delay in lodging the complaint, nature of the alleged offences, requirement for custodial interrogation, and the petitioner's innocence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the delay in lodging the complaint, absence of medical evidence, and the nature of the alleged offences to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court directed the police to release the petitioner on bail subject to certain conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation.
JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.55/2022 registered by Gonibeedu police station, Chikkamagaluru district for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 354(A)(2) and 506 read with Section 18 of POCSO Act.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 served and unrepresented.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of the mother of the victim-respondent No.2 herein, complaint came to be filed on 04.06.2022 alleging that her daughter aged about 13 years was found dull and on questioning she has revealed that on 04.05.2022 at 12.30 p.m. when her mother and other family members were out of the house and she was alone in the house, at that time this petitioner entered the house and said to have dragged the victim girl by holding hands and when she raised the alarm, he went away by threatening her not to disclose to anybody. After registering the case, the police are making hectic effort to arrest this petitioner. He has approached the Sessions Judge for granting anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. There is delay of one month in filing the complaint. Therefore, he contends that the present petitioner is entitled for bail and he is ready to abide by any condition. Hence prayed for granting bail.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP objected the bail petition and contended that statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C statement has clearly revealed that the accused not only dragged the victim but touched her body and private parts and the victim herself raised alarm and thereafter the petitioner ran away by threatening her not to disclose. Therefore, there is a delay in lodging the complaint. Petitioner is required for custodial interrogation, hence prayed for rejecting the bail petition.
6. Upon hearing the arguments and perused the records, which reveals ofcourse, there is a delay of one month in filing the complaint. The alleged incident said to be have taken place on 04.05.2022 at 12.30 p.m., whereas complaint came to be filed on 04.06.2022 at 12.30 p.m., hence, one month delay in lodging the complaint. The statement of the mother of the victim reveals the accused only dragged the victim girl by holding her hands, however, victim girl stated that the accused dragged her and also hugged her and touched her chest, thereafter when she raised alarm, the accused went away by threatening her. The offence under Section 7 of POCSO may also be attracted other than 354 A of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act. However, the medical report of the victim is not produced before this Court, except the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. There is improvement in the 164 Cr.P.C statement and 154 Cr.P.C statement of the mother of the victim. The alleged offences are though non-bailable, but not punishable with death or imprisonment of life and triable by the Magistrate. Therefore, considering the delay in lodging the complaint and by imposing certain conditions, if bail is granted, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, the following ORDER The respondent - Police is directed to release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections Crime No.55/2022 registered by Gonibeedu police station, Chikkamagaluru district for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 354(A)(2) and 506 read with Section 18 of POCSO Act, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakhs only) with a solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the concerned trial Court;
(ii) Petitioner shall surrender him
AI
The court may grant anticipatory bail considering the nature of the alleged offences, absence of medical evidence, and the delay in lodging the complaint.
Anticipatory bail should only be granted in exceptional circumstances; the seriousness of the allegations and need for investigation justifies denial of bail.
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 nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the conduct of the accused, and the need for thorough investigation are key considerations in the grant or refusal of bail.
Offence of voluntarily causing hurt - Grant of Bail - Petitioner is in custody for last 18 months. In view of present pandemic it is unlikely that trial will commence in near future. Keeping all thes....
.
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.