The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court

seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime

145/2021 of Mudhol Police Station, Kalaburagi District,

pending in Spl. Case (POCSO) No.22/2022 on the file of II-

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, for the

offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 354(D), 504,

506, 109, 450, 376(3) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 4, 12, 14 and 17 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 (for

short ‘POCSO Act’), on the basis of the first information

lodged by informant-Bhagyashree.

2.

Heard Sri Nandkishore Boob, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Sri Shivakumar R. Tengli, learned

3

Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State.

Perused the materials on record.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1. He is

innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged.

He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any

basis. He was apprehended on 18.12.2021 and since then

he is in judicial custody. The victim was aged about 17

years. Her statement was recorded under Section 164 of

Cr.P.C. She specifically stated that they had consensual

physical relationship about two years back. Deliberately,

the police complaint is lodged after lapse of two years.

The victim is already examined as PW.1. Therefore,

detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to

pre-trial punishment. The petitioner is not having any

criminal antecedents. He is the permanent resident of the

address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is

ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that

4

would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow

the petition.

4.

Per contra, learned Additional Government

Advocate opposing the petition submitted that serious

allegations are made against the petitioner for having

committed the offences. Accused No.1 had committed

sexual assault on the minor girl repeatedly. He had even

taken obscene photos and uploaded the same in the social

media. He had written love letters and sent it through

accused

No.2.

Therefore,

the victim lodged

first

information

making

specific

allegations.

After

investigation, charge sheet is filed and the trial has already

begun. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioner is not

entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of

the petition.

5.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would

arise for my consideration is:

5

“Whether

the

petitioner

is

entitled for grant of bail under Section

439 of Cr.P.C.?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the

following:

R E A S O N S

6.

The

victim

aged

16

years

lodged

first

information making specific allegations. Even though the

victim stated that she had sexual relationship with the

accused about two years back, she specifically stated that

the accused had taken photos with her and uploaded it in

the social media, which defamed her. It is also stated that

he had written letters and sent it through accused No.2

wherein he has used foul language and criminally

intimidated her and her family members. These are all

serious

allegations

made

against

the

petitioner.

Admittedly, the victim herself lodged first information and

she is examined in chief as PW.1. She has not yet been

cross-examined. Moreover, learned Additional Government

Advocate submits that other material witnesses are to be

6

examined before the Trial Court. Considering the nature

and seriousness of the offences and also the stage at

which the trial before the Trial Court is pending, I am of

the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to be

enlarged on bail, at this stage.

7.

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

negative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NB*

Ct: SMP