This criminal bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C was rejected. The Court held that the allegations of sexual assault on a minor, supported by medical evidence and corroborated by subsequent statements, were too grave to ignore, rendering the case unfit for bail despite custody duration.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8815/2022
BETWEEN:
RAGHU, S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED 27 YEARS, R/AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE, KESTUR POST, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101.
….PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
*****
THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.37/2022 REGISTERED BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376 AND 448 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 6 AND 8 OF POCSO ACT WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTSC-1) TUMAKURU IN SPL.C.NO.328/2022.
THIS PETITION 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 seeking for enlarging him on bail in Crime No.37/2022 registered by the Tumakuru Women Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and Sections 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'POCSO Act') pending on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTSC-1), Tumakuru in
Spl.C.No.328/2022.
3
husband were returning to the home from the temple, they saw that petitioner coming out of their house and on enquiry, he ran away without replying them. Then the complainant entered the house and saw her minor daughter-victim aged about 12 years was crying and on enquiry she narrated the fact that the accused has committed sexual assault on her. Immediately she consoled her daughter and informed the incident to her husband and then her husband said that on the next day they can lodge a complaint and accordingly, complaint came to be lodged. The victim was subjected to medical examination and the present petitioner was also arrested and he was remanded to judicial custody after medical examination. In the meanwhile, the Investigating Officer concluded the investigation and submitted the charge sheet against the present petitioner-accused. The present petitioner has moved a regular bail petition before the Learned Special Judge and his bail petition came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
4
records, it is evident from the records that there are specific allegations regarding sexual assault on the victim. No doubt the medical examination of the victim discloses that hymen was intact. But however, the other medical examination discloses that there was a pheno vaginal penetration. Apart from that, the FSL report disclose that presence of seminal stains detected on item No.7 and item No.7 is the frock said to be belonging to the victim.
the very next day and the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C recorded by the magistrate pertaining to the victim wherein the victim has narrated the incident that the accused has undressed the victim and he got undressed and he has attempted to penetrate by laying on her. This statement is corroborated by the medical evidence.
5
the notice inconsistency in the complaint and the statement under Section 161 Cr.PC given by the victim which deviates from recitals of the complaint, wherein there are no allegations regarding sexual assault and only allegation was made pertaining to kissing. But it is again falsified by statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC coupled with complaint allegations and medical evidence. These documents prima facie establish that there is material evidence against the present petitioner and the contention that the petitioner is in custody for last 5 months is not a ground for admitting him on bail considering heinous offence committed by him.
6
these facts and circumstances and age of the victim, the alleged allegation leveled against the present petitioner cannot be ignored. Further there is chances of tampering the prosecution witnesses as it appears from the subsequent statement of the complainant. Considering the material evidence placed and the conduct of the petitioner, this is not a fit case, wherein the discretion can be exercised in favour of the petitioner.
survive for consideration and accordingly it stands rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
MKM
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be enlarged when the petitioner is accused of sexual assault under POCSO Act with corroborating medical evidence?
Whether the inconsistency between the initial complaint and victim statement warrants bail despite medical evidence of sexual assault?
Whether the 5-month custody period constitutes a ground for adherence to bail in a heinous offence against a child?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Raghu
State of Karnataka
Anjinamma
Rajendra Badamikar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
