- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1255 CRL.P No. 100015 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.100015 OF 2025 [439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)] BETWEEN: MR. PRABHU S/O. SHEKHAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC. GUEST TEACHER, R/O. BALUTAGI VILLAGE-583231, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL. … PETITIONER (BY SRI NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HANUMASAGARA POLICE STATION, R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001. 2. SRI YALLAPPA S/O. SHARANAPPA YALIGAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MALAGITTI VILLAGE-583231, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. (483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.83/2024 PENDING BEFORE ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-1, AT KOPPAL REGISTERED WITH HANUMASAGAR POLICE STATION FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 376(2)(f), 376(3), 506, 363 OF IPC AND SECTION 4 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 IN SPL.SC.POCSO NO.49/2024. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.24 14:17:50 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1255 CRL.P No. 100015 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (‘CrPC’ for short) by accused for grant of regular bail in Crime no.83/2024 by Hanumasagar Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376 (2) (f), 376 (3), 506 and 363 of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’ for short). 2. Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for petitioner submitted case of prosecution was that a complaint was filed by Yallappa S/o. Sharanappa Yeligar stating that he had four daughters and one son of whom, second daughter (victim) had completed her SSLC at Kittur Rani Chennamma Residential School at Balutagi village, Yelburga and later taken admission for PUC at Morarji (Girls) Residential College, Koppal. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1255 CRL.P No. 100015 of 2025 3. It was further stated in complaint that at 10:00 p.m., on 18.06.2024 complainant, his mother, wife and children had dinned and slept. But when he woke up at 6:00 am on 19.06.2024, he found victim missing and was unable to trace her even after searching everywhere. Apprehending that some unknown person had kidnapped victim aged 16 years 3 months and 22 days with ill intention, complaint was filed. Same was initially registered under Section 363 of IPC. 4. Though petitioner had not committed any offences, he was arrested on 21.06.2024. His application for bail in Spl.SC.POCSO no.49/2024 was rejected on 02.09.2024 by Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1 at Koppal on wholly untenable considerations. 5. It was submitted, after tracing of victim, she was subjected to medical examination, which as per opinion of Medial Officer did not indicate history of sexual assault on 19.06.2024 or any external injuries though rupture of hymen was noticed. However, in history - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1255 CRL.P No. 100015 of 2025 column, alleged sexual assault by petitioner on 17.12.2023 at 12:00 p.m., while studying 10th Std in residential school was noted, which showed dramatic improvisations. 6. In her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, victim merely stated that while studying at Balutagi Kittur Rani Channamma school, Petitioner who was guest lecturer had raped her on 17.12.2023 in Computer Room when there was no-one around and had threatened her against revealing same to anyone. She also stated that on 18.06.2024, he had called her to inform that he would marry her and at 2:00 a.m., on 19.06.2024, she went with him to Gajendragad, Balutagi and Hanchinal villages. It was pointed out that there were no allegations of any sexual assault during said period. 7. It was submitted, above facts would indicate that action initiated against petitioner was apparently in respect of an alleged incident that occurred more than six months earlier without any directly incriminating material - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1255 CRL.P No. 100015 of 2025 against petitioner. Even medical examination reports did not state conclusively that rupture of hymen was due to sexual act. Therefore, prosecution case against petitioner depended heavily if any exclusively on statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. It was submitted, while working as guest lecturer in Balutagi Kittur Rani Chennamma School, he had filed complaint against relative of victim about financial irregularities and that petitioner was being ostracized for same. 8. It was further submitted, statement of charge- sheet witnesses, on which prosecution was heavily dependant was at best hearsay. It was therefore submitted, when petitioner did not bear any criminal antecedents and had not committed any offence, he was being falsely implicated. As charge-sheet was already filed on 09.08.2024 and petitioner was in custody since 21.06.2024, he was entitled for bail. It was submitted, prosecution had cited 27 witnesses and conclusion of trial was in all likelihood to be delayed. Therefore, denial of bail - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1255 CRL.P No. 100015 of 2025 would amount to pre-trial punishment. In support of submission, learned counsel relied on Deshraj @ Musa vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2709. 9. On other hand, Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP appearing for respondent no.1 – State submitted that respondent no.2-complainant was served and had instructed her to represent him also. As such, she opposed petition. It was submitted, indeed initially complaint was filed/registered only under Section 363 of IPC. Only after tracing of victim, she disclosed about earlier incidents and investigation had proceeded in that direction. It was submitted, birth certificate of victim collected during investigation reveals her date of birth as 20.01.2008. Therefore, as on date of incident i.e. on 17.12.2023 her age would be 16 years 3 months and 22 days. It was submitted, in statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, she had specifically implicated petitioner. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1255 CRL.P No. 100015 of 2025 10. It was further submitted, offences alleged against petitioner were heinous in nature and if bail was granted, there was every likelihood of petitioner influencing prosecution witnesses and material. On said ground sought rejection of petition. 11. Heard learned counsel. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioner is entitled for regular bail with conditions?” 12. This petition is for regular bail by sole accused, in Crime no.83/2024 by Hanumasagar Police for offences as mentioned above. Petitioner claims to be innocent and falsely implicated apart from belated complaint and lack of direct incriminating material, while prosecution opposes petition by contending that during course of investigation about missing complaint, victim a minor girl aged 16 years 3 months and 22 days was traced and she had disclosed about commission of other offences with regard to which - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1255 CRL.P No. 100015 of 2025 investigation was conducted, material collected and charge-sheet filed arraigning petitioner. 13. Prima-facie examination of prosecution material would reveal that initially complaint filed by father of victim on 19.06.2024 was reporting victim as missing. After she was traced on 20.06.2024, she was subjected to medical examination which noted about rupture of hymen, but no evidence of sexual activity on 19.06.2024. However, in history of injury, she stated that same was due to her rape by petitioner on 17.12.2023. No other injuries are noted or any material directly implicating petitioner, recovered, especially as incident had occurred more than six months earlier. Further, she has not stated about any sexual assault on 19.06.2024. Even statement of witnesses recorded would appear to be hearsay. However, whether petitioner has committed any offences as alleged would be matter for evidence to establish by prosecution. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1255 CRL.P No. 100015 of 2025 14. Since investigation is completed, there would be no requirement of custodial interrogation. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Deshraj (supra) has granted bail to accused awaiting trial. Infact in case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2012 (1) SCC 49, it held purpose of bail is only to secure presence of petitioner during trial and not as a measure of punishment of under trial. Until convicted, there would be presumption of innocence. Therefore petitioner could be granted bail by imposing stringent conditions. Hence point for consideration is answered in affirmative. Accordingly following: ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused is released on bail in Crime no.83/2024 of Hanumasagara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376 (2) (f), 376(3), 506, 363 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO, subject to following conditions: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1255 CRL.P No. 100015 of 2025 a) Petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for likesum to satisfaction of Addl. District and Sessions Judge-FTSC-1 at Koppal. b) He shall not leave jurisdiction of said Court without prior permission. c) He shall not contact victim either directly or indirectly either through any device or in- person. d) He shall not threaten or tamper with any prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly. e) He shall not indulge in any criminal activities. f) He shall be regular in attending Court proceedings. g) It is clarified that views expressed are prima facie for purposes of this order and shall not influence final outcome after trial. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE CLK/RH CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14