The respondent No.1-police has filed a charge sheet

against the present petitioner for the offences punishable under

Sections 354(A), 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s), (w-i),

3(2)(va) of SC/ST Amendment Act, 2015 and Section 8 & 12 of

Protection

of

Children

from

Sexual

Offences

Act-2012

(hereinafter for brevity referred to as “POSCO Act”).

2.

It is based upon the complaint lodged by present

respondent No.2, the police had initially registered a complaint

against the present petitioner for the alleged offences.

3.

The summary of the complaint which is also the

summary of the charge sheet is that on 16.11.2021 at 4.00

p.m. in the garden land of CW5 situated in Sy.No.113/2 at

Ichanal village of Lingasugur taluka, when CW1 child victim had

been to collect the water from the well situated in the said land,

the accused approached her and attempted to pamper her and

entice her to cooperate with him and further it is said that he

stated before her that in case of any problem to her, he would

take her to doctor. However, the victim is said to have refused

3

to his request and demand and also stated him that she was a

small girl. Still the accused attempted to bring her to his terms

and in the process he abused her taking the name of her caste

and threatened her of dire consequences including taking away

her life. It is stated that in the said process he also touched her

apparel and pulled her dress worn by her. However at the

alarm raised by the victim girl, her mother and other persons

who were said to be in the vicinity rushed there on seeing

whom, the accused is said to have fled away from the place.

4.

In response to the notice, it is only the respondent

No.1 who has filed its statement of objection. Even after

receive of notice, the respondent No.2 who is the complainant

in the case has remained absent.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner in his

argument submitted that the complaint and the contents of the

charge sheet even if they are taken as true, it does not make

any serious offence against the petitioner. Whether the alleged

offence punishable under provisions of POSCO are attracted in

the case is a question which has to be answered only during the

trial. He further submitted that the accused since long time has

been in judicial custody.

4

6.

The learned High Court Government Pleader while

reiterating the contention taken up in the statement of

objections submitted in his argument that there are eye

witnesses to the alleged incident and the offence alleged

against the accused is not a small offence, as such, he does not

deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, he fairly submitted

that the investigation is already over and for the purpose of

investigation, the continuation of accused in judicial custody is

not required.

7.

It is alleged that the accused attempted to secure

the consent of the girl to carry on his alleged motive. However,

neither the complaint nor the other few materials of the charge

sheet which are placed before the Court, at this stage would not

give a clear picture as to what the accused was intending to do

by talking to the alleged victim girl and what exactly his

intention was. Whether the accused had any bad intention of

having any sexual intercourse with the alleged victim girl has to

be ascertained only in a full pledged trial. However, the fact

remains that the accused is said to have attempted and in the

process, he is said to have abused her by taking the name of

her caste. In such circumstances and more particularly,

5

considering the fact that the investigation in the matter is

already completed and the charge sheet is also filed, I am of

the view that imposing reasonable conditions, the accused be

enlarged on bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The criminal petition is allowed.

The petitioner – Shivaraj S/o Gaddeppa Mulimani, be

enlarged on bail in Spl. Case (P) No.03/2022 (Lingasugur Police

Station Crime No.218/2021 for the offences punish