Bench granted bail in a sexual assault case involving a minor child. The court denied the petition due to the gravity of the offence against a minor, noting serious allegations despite medical findings, and dismissed the bail application.
The criminal petition for 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
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8529/2022
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATHA S/O SHANKARA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT HATNA VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI MANDYA 571405
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MRC MANOHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1
SRI.RAVI KIRAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
2
THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.C.C.NO.96/2022 (CR.NO.24/2022) OF SHIVALLI P.S., MANDYA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376(2)(l),376(2)(n),450,506 OF IPC AND SEC.5(L) AND 6 OF POCOS ACT ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-II,MANDYA.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
3
up a shed wherein they are tying their cattles and everyday morning at 4.30 a.m and also in the evening, her parents used to go to the shed in order to procure milk. It is further alleged that nearby the shed, the house of the petitioner-accused is situated and on 20.04.2022 at 4.30 a.m., the complainant and his wife went to the shed and while proceeding, they just pulled the door of the house. The complainant suddenly returned to the house as he had forgot to take the pot for the milk. When he returned along with his wife to his house, he found that door was opened. He noticed that the present petitioner was attempting on his minor daughter/victim by closing her mouth and she was attempting to escape. Seeing
the complainant, the petitioner fled away from the spot. The complainant did not lodge a complaint immediately as it was pertaining to his daughter and though that he would take step after discussing the matter with the elders of the village. In the
4
meanwhile on 22.04.2022 evening 5.00 p.m, the petitioner met him and when he enquired regarding the incident that had occurred two days back, the petitioner did not respond properly and then, one Kumaraswamy who was accompanying the complainant asked him to lodge a complaint. As such, complaint came to be lodged. On the basis of the complaint, crime came to be registered for the offences punishable under Section 376, 511 of IPC and under Section 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act against the petitioner.
5
allegations made in the complaint and further it is asserted in her 164 of CR.P.C. statement that since
last 15 occasions she was being regularly sexually assaulted by the petitioner in the mornings. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer after completing the investigation has submitted a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(L), 372(2)(n), 450, 506 of IPC and under the provisions of Section 5(L) and 6 of the POCSO Act.
6
respondent No.1-State, as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the records.
7
8
a regular sexual assault on her continuously. No doubt, Section 161 statement and the statement recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, differ regarding continuous sexual assault on the victim, but they are required to be tested only during the course of trial. No doubt, the medical evidence does establish that hymen is intact and no seminal stains were detected. However, the complaint was not in respect of penetrative sexual assault but in respect of attempt of rape. The petitioner is aged 34 years and victim is aged about hardly 13 years and he attempted on a minor child. The matter is serious in nature and merely on the ground that the petitioner is in custody since 29.04.2022 is not a ground for admitting him on bail. Considering the serious allegations made against the petitioner and considering the Statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, given by the victim, it is not a fit case wherein discretion can be exercised in favour
9
of the petitioner. Hence, the petition is devoid of merit and does not survive for consideration.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ln
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted in a case involving sexual assault on a minor child under IPC and POCSO Act.
Whether the medical evidence of intact hymen and absence of seminal stains negates the offence in a bail petition.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
MANJUNATHA S/O SHANKARA
STATE OF KARNATAKA
RUDRAPPA
RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
