Altaf S/O Munna Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 (UNDER SECTION 483(1) OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON REGULAR BAIL IN SPL.S.C.POCSO NO.05/2025 (UNDER CRIME NO.313/2024 REGISTERED BEFORE KARATAGI P.S.), PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL (SITTING AT GANGAVATHI) FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363, 376(2)(N), 344, 323, 504, 506 OF IPC, UNDER SECTIONS 4, 6, 5(L) OF POCSO ACT 2012 AND UNDER SECTION 9 AND 10 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT, 2006, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH)

¶25

The petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.1 in Crime No.313/2024 of respondent police, pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, sitting at Gangavathi, registered for the offences punishable under sections 363, 376(2)(n), 344, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, Section 4, 6, 5(L) of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 and 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, is before this Court seeking regular bail.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15230 CRL.P No. 104142 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

The case of the prosecution is that, on

¶29

19.12.2024 at about 10.30 a.m. the second respondent lodged a complaint before the respondent police stating that, the daughter of the complainant who was aged about 16 years 05 months, was living along with her parents. She

¶30

was doing some business of selling papad and roti in different villages. Her daughter was studying in 10^th Standard at Government High School, Siddapur. During her school holidays, the complainant used to take her daughter along with her to sell papad and roti. Sometimes, the villagers would directly go to her house and used to purchase the said items.

¶31

It is further stated that, the petitioner used to go to the said house to purchase papad and other items. As such, he was closely associated with the daughter of the complainant. The complainant warned her not to be close with her daughter. However, on 07.07.2024 at about 01.00 a.m., when the daughter of the complainant was alone at home, the petitioner entered into the house and committed

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15230 CRL.P No. 104142 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

sexual assault on her. Thereafter, accused Nos.2 to 4 are stated to have performed the marriage of him along with the victim and kept them in the house of CW.10. While they were staying in the said house, the petitioner after consuming alcohol used to assault her by suspecting the fidelity. Therefore, she informed her mother, who is the complainant herein. The complainant lodges a complaint against the petitioner and others. The respondent police after conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet.

¶36

Heard Sri Naganagouda M. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Praveena Y. Devaraddiyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 State and perused the material placed before the Court.

¶37

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the

¶38

petitioner that, in the charge sheet there are four accused have been implicated in this case. Accused Nos.2 to 4 have

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15230 CRL.P No. 104142 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

been enlarged on bail by the Trial Court. Though, it is alleged that he had committed sexual assault on the minor, the fact remains that, he was not aware about the actual age of the victim. In fact, the complainant performed the marriage by consenting for the said marriage and she herself performed the marriage. Subsequently, a small quarrel took place between the petitioner and the victim. Hence, she lodges a complaint against the petitioner. However, there is a possibility of settling the matter between themselves.

¶42

It is further submitted that, the petitioner is aged about 24 years and working as a Teacher and he is the earning member of the family and he is the permanent resident of Gouli Nagar, Laxmi Nagar, Gangavathi Taluka in Koppal District and he will abide the condition imposed by this Court, in the event of his release on bail.

¶43

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 State vehemently

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15230 CRL.P No. 104142 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

submitted that, the victim was minor as on the date of committing the sexual assault on her. She was not a consenting party for the alleged offence. The averments made in the charge sheet would indicate that, the petitioner had sexually assaulted her on several occasions by confining her in the house of CW.10. The other accused along with this petitioner, performed the marriage of the petitioner with the victim knowingly that the victim was minor, therefore, it is appropriate to reject the bail.

¶47

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint and the charge sheet, it appears from the record that the petitioner married the victim on 05.05.2024. It appears that, at the time of marriage the age of the victim was not known to the petitioner and other family members. They were started residing in the house of CW.10. During their stay, a quarrel had taken place between the victim and the petitioner. Therefore, a complaint came to be registered against him. On the basis of the said complaint, the

¶48

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15230 CRL.P No. 104142 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

petitioner came to know that the age of the victim was 16 years.

¶51

Be that as it may, no relevant document is

¶52

produced to demonstrate the said age of the victim. Hence, it is appropriate to grant bail by imposing suitable conditions that would take care of the apprehension of the prosecution.

¶53

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i) The petition is allowed .

¶56

ii) The petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be

¶57

enlarged on bail, in Crime No.313/2024 of respondent police, pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, sitting at Gangavathi, on executing his personal bond for a sum of ₹1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees) along with one surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶58

8 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15230 CRL.P No. 104142 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

iii) The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶62

iv) The petitioner shall not commit similar or any

¶63

other criminal offences till disposal of the case.

¶64

v) The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all hearing dates, without fail.

¶65

In case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions enumerated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.

¶66

Sd/(S.RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶67

MRK CT: UMD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15

Altaf S/O Munna Pasha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Altaf S/O Munna Pasha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Peetappa S/O Shankrappa Lamani Vs the Sub-Divisional Magistrate

Akkireddy S/O. Gurunathreddy Vs Superintendent of Police

Shri Sanju S/O Parasu Karande Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammedsab S/O Husensab Mujawar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Rohan S/O Rajeshkumar Patil Vs State of Karnataka

Toufik Alias Balekhan Shoukat Khyadi Alias Khyadagol Vs the State of Karnataka