IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8934/2022
BETWEEN:
HARISHA
S/O MANJEGOWDA
AGED 18 YEARS
R/O ARLIKATTE
AGRAHARA TOWN
CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573116
..PETITIONER
(BY SRI.GIREESHA J T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
&RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R.1
R.2 SERVED)
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN P S
REP. BY SPP
HIGH COUR BUILDING
BENGALURU 3 560 001
2. C.B.JAYARAM,
S/O BOREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
GANDHI CIRCLE,
MAGALAKERI,
CHANNARAPATNA TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT 573 116
2
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.137/2022 OF
CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN P.S., HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 363 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 8 AND
12 OF POCSO ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1 AT HASSAN IN
SPL.C.NO.345/2022.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439
of Cr.P.C. for enlarging him on bail in Crime No.137/2022 of
Channarayapatna
Town
Police
Station,
registered
in
Spl.C.No.345/2022 on the file of Additional District and
Sessions
Judge,
FTSC-1,
at
Hassan
for
the
offences
punishable under Section 363 of IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for
short 8the POCSO Act9).
2.
The brief factual matrix leading to the case are
that:
The complainant C.B.Jayaram is the maternal grand-
father of the victim girl. His daughter Sudharani was married
to one Naganna. Sudharani died about 12 years back and the
3
victim is now residing in the house of the complainant and
she is studying S.S.L.C. It is alleged that on 16.04.2022 at
about 12.30 p.m. the victim went outside the house, but she
did not return and therefore the complainant has lodged a
missing complaint. Subsequently, it is revealed that the victim
along with accused/petitioner went to Dharmastala and they
stayed for one day and subsequently as per her request they
returned. In the meantime, they had knowledge of the
complaint lodged and therefore she approached the police
station. The Investigating Officer has recorded her statement
and she was also sent for medical examination. But the victim
has refused to undergo medical examination.
3.
Under these circumstances, the Investigating
Officer after completing the investigation submitted charge
sheet for the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC
and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner was
apprehended and he was remanded to judicial custody. Hence
the petitioner approached this Court.
4
4.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-
State. Perused the records.
5.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner would
invite the attention of this Court to the statement said to have
been given by the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
wherein there are no allegations of offences under the POCSO
Act. He further contended that the victim is aged about 16
years, at the same time, the petitioner is aged 18 years. The
petitioner is in custody since April 2022 and as such he seeks
for admitting the petitioner on bail. It is further contended
that the investigation is over and charge sheet has been
submitted.
6.
Per contra, the learned HCGP would oppose the
bail petition seriously and sought for dismissal of the petition
on the ground that the petitioner has committed offences
under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act and in case the
petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is very possibility of
5
tampering the prosecution witnesses and jumping the bail
conditions. Hence he would seek rejection of bail petition.
7.
Having heard the arguments and perusing the
records, it is the evident that the victim is studying in 10th
standard and she is staying with her maternal grand-father. It
is the further allegation of the prosecution that on 16.04.2022
at 12.30 p.m. she went outside the house along with dog and
then petitioner came there in an Auto, took her to
Channarayapatna bus stand. From there they went to
Dharmastala. It is further asserted that they stayed there till
18.04.2022 and as soon as she asserted that she wants to
return to the house, they returned to Channarayapatna.
When
she
got
knowledge
of
lodging
complaint,
she
approached the police. In her statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. she simply asserted that the petitioner took her by
force from Channarayapatna to Dharmastala and she had no
intention to accompany him. But he threatened her that he is
going to assault her maternal grandfather and as such she
accompanied. But, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is
6
completely
silent
regarding
sexual
assault
so
as
to
incorporate the offences under Sections 8 and 12 of the
POCSO Act.
8.
Further her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
discloses that she voluntarily accompanied the petitioner to
Dharmastala. If
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.