This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking for grant of bail in Spl. S.C.

No.13/2021 in respect of Crime No.201/2020 registered by

Ranebennur Police Station for the offences punishable under

Sections 376 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and

Sections 4, 6 and 12 of Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’).

3

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent No.1-State and the learned counsel for respondent

No.2.

3.

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of

victim minor girl herself initially to the Manglore Women Police

Station alleging that she herself, her sister and mother residing with

the step father of the complainant. On 15.08.2020 when the

complainant after completion of her work stayed near the house,

the petitioner/accused being the father forcefully took her and

committed sexual assault on her. Thereafter every alternative day

he used to commit sexual assault on her. Subsequently, she went

to the house of her husband and suffered from stomach pain and

her menses were stopped and she become pregnant and then it

was aborted. After registering the case, the Manglore Women

Police on the point of jurisdiction transferred the case to the

Ranebennur Town Police Station and the same was registered in

Crime No.201/2022. Subsequently, the Police arrested the

4

petitioner on 28.12.2021 and his bail petition became rejected by

the Sessions Judge hence, he is before this Court.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended mainly

on two grounds that the petitioner is in custody more than six

months and PWs-1 and 2 i.e., victim girl and her mother both of

them were turned hostile. Therefore, there is no finding on record,

hence he prayed for granting bail. The learned counsel also

contended that the DNA Test report yet not received, on that

ground the Sessions Judge rejected the bail petition, hence he

prayed for grant of bail.

5.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader

seriously objected the bail petition and contended that the DNA

Test report yet not received, which is required to accept the case of

the complainant to know the accused is cause for the pregnancy.

The petitioner/accused is the step father of the complainant, hence

she prayed for rejection of bail petition.

6.

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 also objected

the bail petition and prayed for rejection of bail.

5

7.

Having heard the arguments of both the counsels and

perused the records.

8.

On perusal of the records, the relationship between the

petitioner and victim girl is not in dispute. The complainant is the

daughter of the petitioner who is born to the first husband of her

mother and not to the petitioner/accused. The menses were

stopped as per the statement of the victim girl before the Police as

well as the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., it was

stated by her in the complaint before the Police that the

petitioner/accused being the step father forcefully took her and

committed sexual assault on her and thereafter on every alternative

day he committed sexual assault on her and she became

pregnancy. Of course, the PWs-1 and 2 i.e., victim girl and her

mother were turned hostile before the Trial Court. However, the

trial is still pending. The DNA Test report yet not received. The

presumption is available under Section 29 of the POSCO Act

9.

Therefore, at this stage if the bail is granted to the

petitioner, there is every possibility of absconding and threatening

to the witnesses which cannot be ruled out. Therefore, I am of the

6

view that the petitioner is not entitle for grant of bail and the

petition is liable to be dismissed.

10.

Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SMM