- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7335 CRL.P No. 101478 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101478 OF 2025 (439 OF Cr.PC/483 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: MOHAMMAD USAMA S/O. AKBARSAB MAGADI (A2), AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. NEAR FAKIRESHWARA MATHA, VILL: SHIRAHATTI, TAL: GADAG, DIST. GADAG 582117. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KIRAN M. GOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (THROUGH MULAGUND POLICE STATION, GADAG), REP. BY HCGP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENCH DHARWAD. 2. HANAMAVVA K. MALLASAMUDRA, AGE 76 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, HUSBAND KARIYAPPA, ADDRESS SHIRUND, TQ. GADAG, DIST. GADAG 582117. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 SERVED) THIS PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C. (U/SEC. 483 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE ABOVE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IN MULAGUND PS, CRIME NO.33/2024 DATED 06.07.2024 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376(2)(i)(n), 506 OF IPC, ALONGWITH SECTIONS 6, 8 OF POCSO ACT AND U/S.3(2)(va) OF SC/ST ATROCITIES ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, GADAG SPL.C. (SC/ST) 233 /2024. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7335 CRL.P No. 101478 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent – State. Respondent No.2 has remained absent. 2. The petitioner – accused No.2 has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to grant regular bail in Special Case (SC/ST) No.233/2024 pending on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, seeking to release him on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i)(n) and 506 of IPC and Sections 6 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7335 CRL.P No. 101478 of 2025 The victim girl was aged about 17 years 10 months as on the date of the incident and she belongs to Hindu Bhovi which comes under Scheduled Caste. Accused No.1 – Mehaboob induced the victim girl on the premise of love, by promising her to marry. Thereafter, he threatened her, committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault which resulted in pregnancy of the victim girl. Hence, a case was registered at Mulagund Police Station. Investigation also reveals that accused No.2 Mohammed Usama introduced himself to the victim girl in the guise of helping her to pledge her gold in Manapuram Gold Finance Limited and on that premise only, on 10.11.2023, accused No.2 also forcibly committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault for four times with her in his Maruti Suzuki Ertiga car bearing registration No.KA-26/N-5296 near Fakkireshwara Math. Hence, the petitioner – accused No.2 also implicated in this case. 4. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was laid against both accused Nos.1 and 2 for the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7335 CRL.P No. 101478 of 2025 aforesaid offences. During the course of investigation, accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested and in turn remanded to judicial custody. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations made against the petitioner are all false. There is inordinate delay in recording the statement of victim so as to implicate accused No.2 is concerned. The petitioner is a driver by profession and he is the only bread earner in his family. He is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, the learned counsel prayed to allow the petition. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State contended that the petitioner has committed a serious offence viz., aggravated penetrative sexual assault on minor girl. Hence, there is prima facie case against the petitioner. If the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper the prosecution witnesses and may influence the victim girl and there is likelihood of he fleeing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7335 CRL.P No. 101478 of 2025 away from justice. Thus, the learned High Court Government Pleader prayed to reject the petition. 7. From the perusal of the materials available on record, including the charge sheet materials, it appears that as on the date of the incident, the victim was aged about 17 years 10 months. On perusal of the statement of the victim, wherein she has categorically stated that accused No.2 also developed friendship with the victim and that he introduced himself to the victim by helping her to pledge her gold in Manapuram Gold Finance Limited. Therefore, he took her to Shirahatti – Gadag road near Fakkiresh Math, where he had aggravated sexual assault on the victim for four times in his Maruti Suzuki Ertiga Car. Hence, the victim has categorically stated that it was forcible sexual intercourse on her. No doubt, there is delay in recording the statement of the victim so as to disclose the name of accused No.2 in the investigation. But the victim has properly explained the delay that there was threat by the petitioner – accused No.2. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7335 CRL.P No. 101478 of 2025 8. On perusal of the medical records, it reveals that there is evidence of sexual assault on the victim. Admittedly, the victim girl is minor, the question of consent would not arise in an allegation of aggravated sexual assault under POCSO Act. 9. Having regard to the materials placed on record, the victim girl is below 18 years, the prosecution has placed prima facie materials to prove the involvement of the petitioner – accused No.2 in committing alleged offences which attracts the provision of POCSO Act. Now the trial is pending before the trial Court and the witnesses are required to be examined. If the petitioner is released on bail, he may threaten the prosecution witnesses and may hamper the trial. Therefore, considering all these aspects of the matter, it is not a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is rejected. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE RSH /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17