Shri. Drupsingh S/O. Indrajitsing Thakur v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2025CRL.P/101271/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail refused - minor victim (15 years 10 months) - aggravated penetrative sexual assault - S.376(3) IPC, S.506 IPC, Ss.4 & 6 POCSO Act 2012 - Section 164 CrPC statement - medical opinion - prima facie allegations - gravity of offences - Karnataka High Court Dharwad Bench - Justice Venkatesh Naik T - Crime No.80/2024 Laxmeshwar Police Station - Sessions Case No.46/2024, Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Gadag - bail petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Per the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the accused took the victim girl on his motorcycle and during night hours (at 8.30 p.m.) committed aggravated and penetrative sexual assault on her. ¶42

Shri. Drupsingh S/O. Indrajitsing Thakur Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8296 CRL.P No. 101271 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101271 OF 2025 (439 OF Cr.PC/483 OF BNSS)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHRI. DRUPSINGH S/O. INDRAJITSING THAKUR, AGE ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: VENDING BROOMS, R/O. JANNAT NAGAR, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD,THROUGH LAKSHMESHWAR POLICE STATION, GADAG DIST. 582116.

¶15

Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR

¶16

Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶17

SMT. SUNEERA W/O. SADIQ, AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HOLENUR, TQ & DIST. SHIVAMOGGA-577216.

¶18

SRI. MOIDEEN KUNNI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O. PADI HOUSE HORKADI VILLAGE, KASARGODE TALUK, KASARGODE, KERALA STATE. (FATHER OF VICTIM)

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SHRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C. (U/SEC. 483 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED) ON BAIL IN SESS. C. NO. 46/2024 (LAXMESHWAR P.S., CRIME NO. 80/2024), PENDING ON THE FILE OF COURT OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 376(3), 506 OF IPC AND SEC. 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT-2012 AND ETC.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8296 CRL.P No. 101271 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶28

Heard Sri.Vidyashankar G. Dalwai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State. Respondent No.2 is duly served with notice and she remained absent.

¶29

The petitioner-accused has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., [483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] to grant bail in connection with Crime No.80/2024 of Laxmishwar Police for the offences punishable under Sections 376(3), 506 of IPC and Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act-2012.

¶30

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

¶31

The first informant lodged a complaint against the petitioner alleging that the victim girl is the sister of the defacto complainant. The age of the de-facto complainant was

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8296 CRL.P No. 101271 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

15 years 10 months and was studying at Kasaragodu District, Kerala state. On 21.05.2024, the victim was traveling by bus from Udupi to Laxmishwara. When the victim was on the way to Asara Darga in Hubballi, accused approached her and convinced the victim and made her to go with him on his motorcycle bearing No.KA-26/EF-6033 by offering lift to go to darga. Instead of taking the victim towards Darga, the accused took the victim to the Balehalli Kalyana mantapa and beneath a tree, at around 8.30 p.m., the accused committed aggravated and penetrative sexual assault on the victim. Hence, she informed said aspect to the de-facto complainant. Thus she filed a complaint, which leads to registration of FIR and investigation. During the course of investigation, petitioner-accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

¶35

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended

¶36

that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the case, he is innocent of the alleged offences. In fact, the victim had a friend, who is from Surathkal. He contended that there are no external injuries caused to the victim and hymen was

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8296 CRL.P No. 101271 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

not ruptured and as per the FSL report, no seminal stains on the cloths of the accused are detected. Petitioneraccused is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, prays to allow the petition.

¶41

Learned HCGP contended that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner. The victim clearly stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner-accused. As per medical report, it indicates that the hymen was ruptured and victim was aged 15 years 10 month as on the date of incident. As per the FSL report, seminal stains were detected on the clothes of accused. If the accused is released on bail, he may threaten the victim/prosecution witnesses and hence, prays to reject the bail petition.

¶42

On perusal of the record, it reveals that the victim was minor at the time of commission of offence. As per statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., it appears that the accused took victim girl in his motorcycle and during night hours i.e. at 8.30 p.m., he committed aggravated and penetrative sexual assault on the victim,

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8296 CRL.P No. 101271 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

knowing fully well that the victim was minor. As per the medical report, the medical officer opined that “occurrence of sexual act has happened.” Further, the victim has stated before the medical officer that the accused forced her to remove her clothes and thereafter, he committed aggravated and penetrative sexual intercourse. Hence, there are prima facie allegations against the petitioneraccused. Considering the nature and gravity of the offences alleged against the petitioner, it is not a fit case to grant bail to the accused.

¶46