Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 27927
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1695
CRL.P No. 100025 of 2025
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100025 OF 2025 [439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)]
BETWEEN:
SHRIDHAR S/O. NINGAPPA SARAVAND,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. GUDDADBEVINHALLI, NOW R/AT. KAGINELE,
TQ. BYADAGI, DISTRICT: HAVERI-581110.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI V. M. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH HAVERI WOMEN P.S,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011.
2. IRANAGOUDA S/O. SHANKARAGOUDA KAREGOUDRA,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DEVAGIRI-YALLAPUR,
NEAR KALMESWAR TEMPLE,
TQ/DIST. HAVERI-581110.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI N.M.PATIL, AMICUS CURIAE FOR R2.)
In cases of grave offences against minors, bail may be granted if the investigation is finished, the accused has no criminal history, and long pre-trial custody has occurred, provided appropriate conditions are set to prevent witness interference and ensure trial attendance.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 363, 366, 109 and 376(2)(n) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - Sections 4, 6 and 17 - Bail - Regular bail in matters involving sexual offences against minors - Relevant considerations - Court emphasizing that determination of bail must factor in the age of the parties, presence of violence, custodial duration, and risk of witness interference. (Paras 10, 13, 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The accused, facing charges related to abduction and sexual offences, sought relief via bail. The defense asserted a consensual relationship and lack of physical violence, while the prosecution opposed the motion based on the minor status of the victim and the gravity of the offences. The accused had remained in custody for over a year following the filing of the charge-sheet.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that investigation was complete and the trial was likely to be delayed due to the volume of witnesses. In the absence of prior criminal history and with the accused having been detained for a significant duration, the court determined that conditions could be imposed to mitigate risks of witness tampering or flight.
Issues: Whether an accused, charged with grave offences involving a minor, should be granted bail in light of the completion of the investigation and the length of pre-trial detention.
Ratio Decidendi: Bail is not intended as a punitive mechanism but as a safeguard for trial participation. While judicial caution is required in offences against minors, once investigation is concluded and custody duration is significant, conditional release is appropriate provided it does not prejudice the trial or lead to witness intimidation. (Paras 13, 15, 16)
Result: Petition allowed; regular bail granted subject to conditions.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 483 OF BNSS, 2023 (U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C) SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL, IN CONNECTION WITH HAVERI WOMEN POLICE STATION CRIME NO.59/2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1 HAVERI, IN SPL. SC NO. 85/2023, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 363, 366, 109 AND 376(2)(N) R/W. 34 OF IPC AND U/SEC. 4, 6 AND 17 OF POCSO ACT 2012.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI)
1. This petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (‘CrPC’ for short) for grant of regular bail in Crime no.59/2023 by Haveri Women Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 109 and 376(2)(n) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short) and Sections 4, 6 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’ for short) by accused no.1 (petitioner).
2. Sri V.M.Banakar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted case of prosecution was that Iranagouda Karegoudra filed complaint on 16.10.2023 stating that his daughter (victim) who left home at 9:30 a.m., on 13.10.2023 stating that she was going to college for last exam and did not returned till 2:45 p.m., he enquired with Principal, who informed that victim had not visited college that day and all exams had concluded previous day, he along with relatives searched nearby and also enquired with relatives over phone. Unable to trace her and suspecting someone might have kidnapped her, complaint under Section 363 of IPC was registered as Crime No.59/2023.
3. At outset, it was submitted there was delay of three days in filing complaint. Relying on decision of this Court in case of Shri Nagappa alias Nagaraj vs. The State of Karnataka and Another reported in 2022 (4) KCCR 3865, it was submitted this Court had granted bail on ground of delay in filing complaint, even where offences alleged were under POSCO. It was further submitted, on 19.10.2023 victim was found, her statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC on same day wherein she stated that she became acquainted with petitioner during relative’s wedding 3 to 4 years earlier. Since then they were in love with each other. And on 13.10.2023 at 9:30 a.m., she left home on false pretext of attending last exam, went to Kaginele at 11:30 a.m. and informed petitioner that she had left home. She further stated, that he promised to marry her and took her to Hubballi and from there they went to house of his friend Vishwanath at Tarihal and during their stay from 13.10.2023, petitioner had sexual intercourse with her repeatedly until she was found by Police.
4. It was submitted, medical examination report of victim though showed rupture of her hymen, it did not reveal any injuries which would be indicative of use of physical force or violence. It was submitted, her statement under Section 164 of CrPC was recorded on 03.11.2023 wherein she reiterated about her romantic involvement with petitioner.
5. It was submitted, charge-sheet was filed on 12.12.2023 showing reliance on 39 witnesses by prosecution. It was submitted, petitioner was around 29 years of age and in custody for more than one year. It was also submitted that, he was permanent resident of Guddadbevinhalli, Byadagi Taluk, having age old parents with movable and immovable properties. It was submitted that, petitioner is without any criminal antecedents and was falsely implicated. Further as petitioner and victim were from different villages, more than 40 Kms apart, there would no basis for apprehension of prosecution about petitioner tampering with prosecution witnesses. On above grounds, sought for regular bail on any conditions.
6. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent no.1-State opposed petition. It was submitted, victim was minor aged 16 years 16 days as on date of incident whereas accused was aged 32 years indicating large age gap.
