The lack of corroborative medical evidence against serious allegations justified bail, considering familial relationships and no prior criminal record.

ORAL ORDER

Accused in Spl.C.No.152/2025 pending before the Court of Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge-FTSC-1, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.432/2024 registered by Suddhaguntepalya Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 , 5(L), 5(m) & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 , is before this Court in this successive bail application filed under Section 4 39 of Cr.P.C, seeking regular bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

3. Respondent No.2 who is served in the matter has remained unrepresented before this Court.

4. FIR in Crime No.432/2024 was registered by Suddhaguntepalya Police Station, Bengaluru against the petitioner herein initially for the offences punishable under Sections 4 , 5(L), 5(m) & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 , on the basis of first information submitted on 12.12.2024 received from respondent No.2 herein who is the father of the victim boy, aged about 11 years. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 13.12.2024. After completing investigation in the case, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

5. The bail application filed by the petitioner before the jurisdictional Sessions Court was rejected. Therefore, at crime stage, the petitioner had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.347/2025, which was dismissed by the coordinate bench of this Court on 06.02.2025. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a fresh bail application before the Trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.1714/2025, which was rejected on 06.03.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court in this successive bail application.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition submits that the medical records of the victim boy, which are now available on record do not support the allegation found in the charge sheet. The petitioner is the maternal grandfather of the victim boy. The mother of the victim boy is born to the petitioner from his first wife whom the petitioner has divorced and his first wife is now married to another person and she is living separately. Even as per the material available on record, the first informant and his wife had met the petitioner for the first time, after a period of 28 years, in the month of September, 2024. The alleged offence is said to have been committed between the period from 11.10.2024 to 01.11.2024. Considering the fact that the petitioner had no contact with his daughter and son-in-law for a period of about 28 years, the allegation now made that their son was taken to the house of the petitioner and he was sexually assaulted, becomes doubtful. Investigation of the case is complete and charge sheet has been filed. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

7. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent No.1, who has opposed the petition submits that serious allegations are found against the petitioner in the first information as well as in the charge sheet. The victim boy has made allegation against the petitioner even in his statement recorded under Section 183 of BNS, 2023 . In the event the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he is likely to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

8. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, the mother of the victim boy is the daughter of the petitioner herein, who was born to his first wife Smt. Hashima Begum. It appears that the petitioner has divorced his first wife Hashima Begum and he