Criminal Petition filed for bail in a Special POCSO case involving serious sexual offences. High Court rejected the bail plea citing the gravity of allegations and the reliability of prosecution materials despite inconsistencies in the victim's testimony.
Bail petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200638/2020
BETWEEN:
Mahantesh @ Mahantappa S/o Sundrappa Doddamani Age: 20 Years, Occ: Coolie R/o Manashivanagi Tq. Yadrami Dist. Kalaburagi - 585 325
… Petitioner
(By Sri M. G. Bhrungimath, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka Through Yadrami P.S. Tq. Yadrami, Dist. Kalaburagi Reptd. by Addl. SPP High Court of Karnataka Kalaburagi Bench - 585 107
… Respondent
(By Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, HCGP)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to allow the petition and enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.121/2019 of Yadrami P.S. registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 366(A), 376(2) (n) of IPC and Sections 12, 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 Spl. Case POCSO No.10/2020 which is pending before the II Additional Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court passed the following:
O R D E R
The petitioner – accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) in Special (POCSO) Case No.10/2020, pending before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi (Crime No.121/2019 of Yadrami Police Station), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 366(A), 376(2) (n) of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 4, 6, and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
3
Act, (for short ‘POCSO Act'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Sri Revansiddappa.
4
accused committed sexual assault on the victim. Therefore, chargesheet came to be filed for the above said offences against the accused.
that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. The first information came to be registered only on the basis of suspicion. The accused was apprehended on 17.11.2019 and since then he is in judicial custody. There is inordinate delay in lodging the first information which is not at all explained. Even though, it is contended that the victim was aged about 16 years at the time of incident, the medical records produced by the Investigating Officer discloses that the victim was aged about 18-19 years and
5
she is a major. He also submitted that the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., was recorded by the learned Magistrate, wherein the victim has not stated anything regarding the commission of the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC or under the provisions of the POCSO Act. Further, the investigation has already been completed and the chargesheet is also filed. The victim is examined as PW.1, she has not supported the case of the prosecution about the allegation made against the accused. Under such circumstances, there is absolutely no material against the accused for having committed the offences. His detention in custody may amount to pretrial punishment. He is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title of the petition and he is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.
Pleader addressed his argument through video conference
6
and submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. The school record pertaining to the victim discloses her date of birth as 09.04.2003. Therefore, she was aged about 16 years 7 months at the time of incident and she was a minor. Taking advantage of her tender age, accused had committed the offences. He further submitted that medical records disclose that the victim herself has given the history to the medical officer and as per the history provided, the accused was committing sexual assault since about two years. Even in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate, the victim has stated that the accused had taken her with him for several days. For the reasons best known to her, the victim has not supported the case of the prosecution in the matter of commission of sexual assault, but the prosecution has cited 29 witnesses including medical officers who collected the history from the victim and issued the medical certificate. Under such circumstances, the prosecution will be able to prove its contention through
7
other materials even though the victim has not supported the case of the prosecution. Looking to the seriousness of the offences, he prays for dismissal of the petition as devoid of merits.
8
said that the victim was major as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. If the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is taken into consideration, she has categorically stated that the accused had taken her to Surpur and from there to Tintani Mouneshwar Temple and finally came to the Shahapur and thereafter, to Varavi before coming back to her village. Ofcourse, while examining her as PW.1 before the trial Court, she has categorically stated that she does not know the accused and that he was not working in their field and she has not supported the case of the prosecution. As rightly contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader that even though the victim has not supported the case of the prosecution for the reasons best known to her, it cannot be concluded that the accused has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. The prosecution will be at liberty to prove its contention with the support of other materials which are part of the chargesheet. Therefore, I am of the opinion that looking to the seriousness of the offences alleged, it is not safe to
9
enlarge the accused on bail. Hence, the petition is
dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/JUDGE
RSP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner be granted bail in a special POCSO case registered for offences punishable under IPC and POCSO Act.
Whether discrepancies regarding the victim's age affect the decision to grant bail in a serious sexual assault case.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Mahantesh @ Mahantappa S/o Sundrappa Doddamani
State of Karnataka Through Yadrami P.S.
M.G. UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
