- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1293 CRL.P No. 100014 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100014 OF 2025 [438(CR.PC)/482(BNSS)] BETWEEN: HANUMANTAPPA S/O RAMAPPA DODDELLER AGE : 30 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O KAMADOD, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT : HAVERI-581 115. …PETITIONER (BY SRI HARSHAWARDHAN M PATIL, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HALAGERI POLICE STATION, R/BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580011. 2. SMT. MANJULA R D/O RAMACHANDRA NAIK, AGE : 30 YEARS, OCC: ANGANAWADI WORKER R/O 4TH CROSS NEAR RANEBENNUR, SIDDARUDHA MATHA, TQ: RANEBENNUR DIST: HAVERI-581 115. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. (SECTION 482 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN HALAGERI P.S. CRIME NO.248/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376(2)(N) OF IPC, SECTION 9 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT AND UNDER SECTION 6, 8 AND 12 OF POCSO ACT. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.25 15:39:35 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1293 CRL.P No. 100014 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This petition for anticipatory bail is by sole accused in Crime No.248/2024 by Halageri Police Station for offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short), Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 (‘PMC Act’ for short) and Sections 6, 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’ for short). 2. Sri Harshawardhan M. Patil, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner was a law abiding citizen belonging to respectable family having reputation in society and a permanent resident of Kamadod village, Ranebennur Taluk of Haveri District having movable and immovable properties. And that had not committed any offences including those alleged against him. However, apprehends his arrest in pursuance of Crime no.248/2024 (supra). It was submitted, complaint was filed by Anganawadi Worker alleging that on 13.09.2024 she received intimation from PHC, Itagi, stating that a minor girl of Kamadod village, (victim) was pregnant. On enquiry, she found - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1293 CRL.P No. 100014 of 2025 that marriage of petitioner and victim was solemnized on 18.02.2024 and thereafter she had become pregnant which would constitute offences as alleged. Based on said complaint, Crime no.248/2024 (supra) was registered. 3. It was submitted, marriage of petitioner and victim was solemnized with consent and blessings of family members and elders. It was thereafter consummated and led to pregnancy of victim. It was submitted even as per prosecution, age of victim was 17 years 8 months when she has become pregnant, while petitioner was unaware about minority of victim and who had in any case indulged in sexual intercourse consensually. Besides, petitioner was having movable and immovable properties and was permanent resident of Kamadod village. Therefore, he was unlikely to flee justice. On above grounds sought anticipatory bail. 4. It was submitted rejection of bail petition by learned District Judge was solely on ground that victim was a minor girl. But whether petitioner had indulged in sexual intercourse with victim knowing about her minority and whether he had committed offences as alleged would be matter - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1293 CRL.P No. 100014 of 2025 for trial. Therefore rejection on said ground would not be justified. 5. On other hand Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents sought to oppose petition. It was submitted offences alleged against petitioner were heinous. Victim was a minor and had become pregnant at age of 17 years and 8 months. It was submitted, as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Independent Thought Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2017) 10 SCC 800, ground of consent would not be available in case of offences under POCSO. Therefore prayed for rejection of petition. 6. Heard learned counsel. 7. Only point that would arise for consideration is: “Whether petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail on conditions?” 8. From above, it is seen petitioner’s apprehension of arrest stems from registration of Crime no.248/2024 (supra) for non-bailable offences as mentioned above. Petitioner’s contention about being a permanent resident of Kamadod - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1293 CRL.P No. 100014 of 2025 village having movable and immovable properties and residing with his family are not denied or disputed. 9. Though prosecution alleges that marriage of petitioner with victim was during age of her minority, same would require to be established during trial. Prima facie prosecution material would not indicate any protest or objection on part of victim. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in case of Dharmander Singh Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1267 has identified various factors which could be taken for consideration while examining claim for bail in case of offences under POCSO, as follows: “77. Though the heinousness of the offence alleged will beget the length of sentence after trial, in order to give due weightage to the intent and purpose of the Legislature in engrafting section 29 in this special statute to protect children from sexual offences, while deciding a bail plea at the post-charge stage, in addition to the nature and quality of the evidence before it, the court would also factor in certain real life considerations, illustrated below, which would tilt the balance against or in favour of the accused : a. the age of the minor victim : the younger the victim, the more heinous the offence alleged; b. the age of the accused : the older the accused, the more heinous the offence alleged; c. the comparative age of the victim and the accused : the more their age difference, the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1293 CRL.P No. 100014 of 2025 more the element of perversion in the offence alleged; d. the familial relationship, if any, between the victim and the accused : the closer such relationship, the more odious the offence alleged; e. whether the offence alleged involved threat, intimidation, violence and/or brutality; f. the conduct of the accused after the offence, as alleged; g. whether the offence was repeated against the victim; or whether the accused is a repeat offender under the POCSO Act or otherwise; h. whether the victim and the accused are so placed that the accused would have easy access to the victim, if enlarged on bail : the more the access, greater the reservation in granting bail; i. the comparative social standing of the victim and the accused : this would give insight into whether the accused is in a dominating position to subvert the trial; j. whether the offence alleged was perpetrated when the victim and the accused were at an age of innocence : an innocent, though unholy, physical alliance may be looked at with less severity; k. whether it appears there was tacit approval-in- fact, though not consent-in-law, for the offence alleged; l. whether the offence alleged was committed alone or along with other persons, acting in a group or otherwise; m. other similar real-life considerations.” - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1293 CRL.P No. 100014 of 2025 10. Even as per prosecution case age of victim was 17 ½ years as on date of marriage and few months shy of age of majority, when she became pregnant. Though age of petitioner is 30 years, proximity of age of victim to age of majority would not disclose any grave case of perversion. 11. Marriage between petitioner and victim is not within family relationship. There is no material to indicate violence or brutality or any other material indicating perversion. Absence of any refusal or protest by victim would indicate tacit-approval, which would be relevant at this stage and whether petitioner has committed offences as alleged would be matter for trial. Fact that there are no criminal antecedents would also favour petitioner. 12. For above stated reasons point for consideration is answered in affirmative. Hence following; ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail in case of his arrest in Crime no.248/2024 of Halageri Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1293 CRL.P No. 100014 of 2025 IPC, Section 9 of PMC Act and Sections 6, 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, subject to following conditions: a) Petitioner/accused shall appear before Investigating Officer within 15 days from date of this order and execute personal bond for sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties for likesum. b) He shall appear before Investigating Officer for purpose of investigation as and when required and co-operate with investigation. c) He shall mark his attendance before Investigating Officer between 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on every alternative Sunday, until completion of investigation/filing of Charge- Sheet. d) He shall not tamper with or influence prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly and shall not hamper investigation. e) He shall not leave jurisdiction of Haveri District, without prior permission. f) He shall forthwith inform any change of residence to Investigating Officer. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE EM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19