The Karnataka High Court dismissed a bail petition filed by a married man accused of sexual assault on a minor and bigamy. The court held that the gravity of the offence and the possibility of witness tampering made bail inappropriate, distinguishing cited precedents.
The criminal petition for enlarging the petitioner on bail was dismissed.
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 AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6926/2022
BETWEEN:
J.B. RAJU S/O BHIMAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NO.7, 3RD CROSS CHITRA LAYOUT, ATTUR LAYOUT YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064
(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. AJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
...RESPONDENTS
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.44/2022 OF YELAHANAKA NEW TOWN P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 366, 376(2) OF IPC AND SEC.6 OF POCSO ACT ON THE FILE OF THE FTSC-IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section
439 of Cr.P.C. for enlarging him on bail in Crime No.44/2022 of Yelahanka Town Police Station, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, pending
before the Court of FTSC IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru in Spl.C. No.899/2022.
of the victim, who is aged 17 years and she lodged a complaint on 11.02.2022 setting the law in motion,
3
wherein it is alleged that, the complainant and her daughter (victim) were residing in Muneshwar Layout, Yelahanka New Town. The victim was aged about 17 years and was studying in II PUC at Yelahanka Government College. It is alleged that on 09.02.2022, at 9.00 a.m., the victim went to college and did not return to home and the complainant searched for her in her relatives house, but, she could not get any information. Then suspecting involvement of the present petitioner in missing of the victim, she lodged a complaint regarding the petitioner/accused kidnapping her daughter. As such, the said crime came to be registered against the petitioner/accused under Section 366(a) of IPC. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer apprehended the petitioner/accused and also secured the presence of the victim, who was in the company of the petitioner and it is revealed that they had married and there was physical relationship between the petitioner and victim. The victim being minor, after
4
investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet under Section 366(a) and 376(2)(n) of IPC as well as under Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act.
learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge with a petition seeking regular bail and that bail petition came to be rejected, and hence, he is before this Court.
counsel for the petitioner/accused and the learned HCGP for the Respondent-State. Perused the records.
would contend that the victim is aged about 17 years and
she is capable of understanding the things and as such, the provisions of POCSO Act though applicable, does not come in the way of admitting the petitioner on bail. He would further contend that the allegations prima facie do not disclose the offence under Section 376(2)(n) as well as
5
under the POCSO Act. He further submits that, both petitioner as well as victim hail from Gulbarga and he is suspecting regarding actual date of birth of the victim. He also submits that the petitioner would undertake to abide by all terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court and sought for admitting the petitioner/accused on bail.
HCGP has seriously objects for granting bail to the petitioner/accused contending that the petitioner being married person has maintained relationship with the minor girl for last two and half years on the pretext of love and though he is married her, he maintained physical relationship with her. She would also contend that investigation is completed and charge sheet has already been submitted and in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of he tampering the prosecution witnesses and jumping bail. As such, she would seek for rejection of bail petition.
6
7. Having heard the arguments and on perusing
the records, it is evident that the minor victim was born on 16.08.2004, which is also evident from the birth record of the victim girl. Hence, as on the date of incident, admittedly, she was aged about 17 years and she belongs to Scheduled Caste.
borne out from the records that, he is married about two years back with another lady. The medical records further disclose that the petitioner/accused has eloped with victim girl as they were knowing to each other since last two years and being friends, they married and had physical relationship. The medical records further disclose that the victim was sexually assaulted from 09.02.2022 till 12.02.2022. The statement of witness one Sri. Duber Ahmed disclose that both the petitioner and victim were stayed in Bangla Bandhu Luxury Homes Lodge and they given their identity as Husband and Wife and occupied
7
Room No.402. This evidence clearly establish that the petitioner being a married person had knowledge that the victim was minor and he eloped with her and married with her, and also developed sexual relationship with her.
8
every possibility of he tampering the prosecution witnesses and jumping bail.
9
does not survive for consideration and it requires to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed .
Sd/-
JUDGE
KGR* CT:NR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to a married petitioner accused of sexual assault on a minor and bigamy despite the victim's alleged maturity.
Whether the distinction between the current facts and cited precedents justifies refusal of bail.
J.B. Raju
The State of Karnataka
Smt. Mallamma
Rajendra Badamikar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
