Husman Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10-03-2025 IN SPL.C.(POCSO) NO.16/2025 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA (CHARGE-SHEETED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 137(2), 64 BNS-2023, (CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS SECTION 363, 376(1)IPC) AND SECTION 4 POCSO ACT 2012 AND SECTION 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT BILL 2014 IN CRIME NO.132/2024 OF CHITRADURGA WOMEN POLICE STATION) CONSEQUENTLY ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL PENDING THE TRIAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

The appellant has preferred this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Special II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Spl.C.(POCSO)No.16/2025, dated 10.03.2025.

¶29

The brief facts leading to this appeal is that on the basis of the complaint filed by Veena B T, the

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:1653 CRL.A No. 2489 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Chitradurga Women Police have registered the case in Crime No.132/2024 against unknown accused for the commission of offence under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('the BNS' for short). During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the victim and other witnesses and after completion of investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for offence under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('the POCSO Act' for short) and Section 137(2) and Section 64 of BNS. The appellant had filed an application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('the BNSS' for short) for regular bail, same came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

¶34

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as on the date of commission of offence, the victim was not a child, she has already attained

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1653 CRL.A No. 2489 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

majority. The prosecution has not produced birth

¶38

certificate of the victim or ossification test certificate as required under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

¶39

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer has not produced the birth certificate of the victim. However, the age of the victim is shown as 17 years. The ossification test certificate is also not produced to prove that the victim was child as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, that there is a delay in filing the complaint, same is not explained by the prosecution. There are no reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant has committed an offence punishable with a death or imprisonment for life. The appellant has been falsely implicated by the complainant and other interested persons, who are inimically disposed of towards the appellant by concocting alleged incident. There was no

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1653 CRL.A No. 2489 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

motive or intention on the part of the appellant to commit offence. The entire charge sheet materials do not disclose the prima facie materials to attract the ingredients of alleged offence against the appellant. There are no prima facie materials to constitute the alleged commission of offence. The statement under Section 183 of BNSS does not reflect any allegation against the appellant. There is no medical evidence to support the case of prosecution and appellant is already in judicial custody from the date of his arrest that is on 03.12.2024. The appellant is ready to abide the conditions, which may be imposed by this Court and victim is already examined by the prosecution. Hence, the question of tampering or threatening the witnesses does not arise. On all these grounds, sought to allow this appeal.

¶43

I have examined the materials placed before this Court. On the basis of the complaint filed by Veena B T, Chitradurga Women Police have registered the case in Crime No.132/2024 against the unknown accused for the

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:1653 CRL.A No. 2489 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

commission of offence under Section 137(2) of BNS and submitted the FIR to the Court. After lapse of 4 days, the accused was arrested by the Investigating Officer and only after investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 137(2) and Section 64 of BNS. In the charge sheet, it is alleged as under:

¶47

“avÀæzÀÄUÀð £ÀUÀgÀzÀ DAd£ÉÃAiÀÄ¸Áé«Ä zÉÃªÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ §½ ªÁ¸À«gÀÄªÀ

¶48

£ÁAiÀÄPÀ d£ÁAUÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ C¥Áæ¥ÉÛ ¨Á®QAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß F zÉÆÃµÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå 12 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀÄªÀ ªÀÄÄ¹èA d£ÁAUÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ D¥Á¢vÀ£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 29.11.2024 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 2-30 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è avÀæzÀÄUÀð £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ªÀÄºÁ«Ãgï £ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è ¥ÁPïð §½ PÀgÉ¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÄ¸À¯Á¬Ä¹ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV vÀ£ÉÆßA¢UÉ ¸ÁQë-17 gÀªÀgÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ KA16-EW-1008 £ÉÃ ¸ÀÆÌnAiÀÄ°è PÀÆj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ »jAiÀÄÆjUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV D¢£À C°èAiÉÄÃ ¸ÀÄvÀÛªÀÄÄvÀÛ wgÀÄUÁr gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ §½ JUï gÉÊ¸ï CAUÀr §½ ªÀÄ®VzÀÄÝ, ªÀiÁgÀ£ÉAiÀÄ ¢£À ¢£ÁAPÀ 30.11.2024 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ Q«AiÉÆÃ¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ²æÃ «ÃgÀ¨sÀzÉæÃ±ÀégÀ dÆåAiÀÄ®j ªÀPÀìð £À°è gÀÆ.5,850/- UÀ½UÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁr ºÀt ¥Àr¢gÀÄvÁÛ£É. £ÀAvÀgÀ CzÉÃ ¸ÀÆÌnAiÀÄ°è zÁªÀtUÉgÉ f¯Éè ºÀjºÀgÀ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ J£ï.ºÉZï-48 ¨ÉÊ¥Á¸ï gÀ¸ÉÛ ªÀÄ¯É¨É£ÀÆßgÀÄ PÁæ¸ï £À ¸À«ð¸ï gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀÆ¼ÉPÉgÉ ºÀ¼ÀîzÀ ©æqïÓ §½ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀæwgÉÆÃzsÀ«zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV CvÁåZÁgÀªÉ¸ÀVgÀÄvÁÛ£É. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀÄ£ÀB ¸ÀÆÌnAiÀÄ°è ºÁªÉÃj f¯Éè »gÉÃPÉgÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ D®zÀUÉÃj UÁæªÀÄzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ

¶49

7 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:1653 CRL.A No. 2489 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

ºÀdgÀvï ¸ÉÊAiÀÄzï d¯Á¯ï ¨sÀgÀ¥ÀÆgï D°µÁ ±ÁªÀ° zÀUÁðPÉÌ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ C°èAiÉÄÃ ¢£ÁAPÀ 02.12.2024 gÀªÀjUÉ G½zÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß w½zÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ D¥Á¢vÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀÄ CzÉÃ ¸ÀÆÌnAiÀÄ°è avÀæzÀÄUÀðPÉÌ ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì §AzÀÄ PÉÆÃmÉ oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. D¥Á¢vÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀÄ C¥Áæ¥ÉÛ CAvÀ w½¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV CvÁåZÁgÀªÉ¸ÀVgÀÄvÁÛ£É CAvÀ vÀ¤SÉ¬ÄAzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀlÖ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ D¥Á¢vÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀ®A.137(2), 64 ©,J£ï.J¸ï. PÁAiÉÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ®A: 4, POCSO ACT2012, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ®A.3,(2)(5), SC/ST PA ACT-1989 jÃvÁå zÉÆÃµÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ”.

¶53

Investigating Officer has not produced the birth certificate or ossification test certificate as required under Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Investigating Officer has produced only school certificate. The age of the victim girl was more than 17 years. The accused is not required for any investigation and it is also not in dispute that the statement of victim is already recorded by the Trial Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature and gravity of offence and the accusation made against the accused, at this stage, it is just and proper to allow this appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶54

8 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:1653 CRL.A No. 2489 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) Appeal is allowed .

¶59

(ii) The order passed by the Special II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Spl.C.(POCSO)No.16/2025, dated 10.03.2025 is set aside. Consequently, application filed under Section 483 of BNSS is allowed.

¶60

(iii) The appellant shall be released on bail on executing a self-bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶61

(iv) The appellant shall not tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶62

(v) The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on all the dates of hearing.

¶63

(vi) Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court.

¶64

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶65

GSR,List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Husman v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Husman 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

Sri. Subramani. B. G. Vs Sri. Umashankar. R

Sri S.M. Srinivasa Murthy Vs Sri P.K Sanath Kumar

Mr. K C Ananda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Anand Kotreshwar Sithale Vs the Enforcement Officer

T M Shivayogiswamy Vs Prathap B

Sri Anand Kotreshwar Sithale Vs the Enforcement Officer