Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 3979
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI, J
BASANGOUD S/O RAMANAGOUDA ALIAS RAMANAGOUDRA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 100006 of 2025
The court denied bail due to the serious nature of the charges against the petitioner, emphasizing the victim's tender age and the gravity of the allegations under POCSO.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376 (AB), 376 (2) (n), 354
(B), 450, 506 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 4, 6, 8 - Bail application - Accused charged with serious offences against a minor - The court emphasized the gravity of the allegations, particularly given the victim's age of just over 12 years, and the nature of the relationship between the accused and the victim. (Paras 1, 8, 10)
(B) Bail considerations under POCSO - The court noted that the heinousness of the offence and the age difference between the victim and the accused are critical factors in bail decisions. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of raping a minor, resulting in her pregnancy. The victim initially acknowledged a relationship with the petitioner but later changed her statement. The petitioner was arrested on the same day as the complaint was filed.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations were grave, particularly due to the victim's tender age and the nature of the relationship, leading to the dismissal of the bail petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail given the serious nature of the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the age of the victim and the nature of the allegations warranted a denial of bail, emphasizing the need to protect minors from sexual offences.
Result: Criminal petition is dismissed.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI)
This petition is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in Spl.S.C.no.91/2024 (Crime no.67/2024) by Haveri Women Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376 (AB), 376 (2) (n), 354 (B), 450 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and Sections 4 , 6 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO’) by sole accused (petitioner).
2. Sri Vijayendra Bhimakkanavar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted case of prosecution was that Smt.Nirmala Salimath filed complaint on 31.08.2024 stating that she was residing with victim, husband and son at Akkur village. Victim being her daughter was studying in 7th standard and that on 29.08.2024, victim informed her that she had missed her menstrual periods. When she was taken to hospital for check- up, she was found to be pregnant. Even at District Hospital, Haveri, pregnancy was confirmed. On enquiry, she informed that petitioner who was employed by complainant earlier had developed intimacy with victim. On 27.08.2023, Sunday at 10:45 p.m. when victim was sleeping in hall of her house, petitioner unlocked door, entered house and sat near victim which alarmed her. When she enquired, he immediately hugged her and thereafter, raped her against her wish. When she was crying after incident, he threatened to kill her parents in case she revealed it to them. Thereafter, petitioner had sexual intercourse with her several times. Complainant further stated that petitioner who was employed for about 3 years had taken advantage of same and by inducing victim to believe that he was in love with her, committed rape. Based on complaint, Crime no.67/2024 was registered by Haveri Women Police Station.
3. It was submitted, petitioner was arrested on same day. It was submitted, in complaint, complainant had stated about petitioner and victim being in love with each other. It was submitted, even in statement of victim recorded under Section 180 of BNSS on 31.08.2024 she had acknowledged about love affair. But, in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS on 21.09.2024 she had changed her version. It was submitted, though age of victim was just above 12 years, she was capable of knowing consequences of her actions and had indulged in sexual intercourse with petitioner for over a period of one year without complaining about it to anyone else. These would indicate tacit approval in fact even if same could not be considered as consent. It was submitted, there was delay of more than one year in filing complaint. Apart from above, it was submitted petitioner himself was aged about 20 years at time of incident. Thus incident occurred during age of their innocence. Even fact that there were no criminal antecedents of petitioner and fact that charge-sheet was filed after completion of investigation while petitioner was in custody and he would not be required for custodial interrogation was also a ground for grant of bail. On above grounds, sought for allowing petition.
4. On other hand, Smt.Girija S.Hiremath, learned HCGP sought to oppose petition by referring statement of objections filed. It was submitted, petitioner was alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 376 (AB), 376 (2) (n), 354 (B), 450 and 506 of IPC and Sections 4 , 6 and 8 of POCSO which carry sentence of more than 10 years upto imprisonment for life. Fact that offence was committed on a very young girl of just above 12 years of age indicated gravity of offence. It was submitted, prosecution had completed investigation and filed charge-sheet on 26.10.2024 after recording statements of 31 witnesses. It was submitted, Medical Examination Report indicated rupture of hymen and since victim had become pregnant, same was medically terminated and fetus was sent for DNA profiling report of which confirmed petitioner as biological father. Therefore,
