- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7742 CRL.P No. 101866 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101866 OF 2025 (439 OF Cr.PC/483 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: SHRI. ANAND S/O. VIJAY CHAWAN, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. PARKED PHATA, DELGAUV SAKARSHA, TQ. MEHEKAR, DIST. BULDAN, MAHARASTRA-443001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH M. KHARVI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MUNDGOD P.S, R/BY. SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD 580008. 2. DEVAKKABAI VIJAYSINGH PAWAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. HINDU BANZARA, PARKED FATA, TQ. MEHAKAR DIST. BULDHANA, MAHARASHTRA-443001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.483 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED ON REGULAR BAIL IN MUNDGOD P.S.CRIME NO.0023/2025 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1 UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR (SPECIAL COURT FOR TRAIL OF CASES FILED UNDER POCSO ACT) IN SPL.C NO.24/2025 FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 137(2), 64(1), 65(1) OF BNS AND UNDER SECTION 4, 8, 12 PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2012, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 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:7742 CRL.P No. 101866 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri. Venkatesh M. Kharvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to grant bail in Special Case No.24/2025 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC – I, Uttara Kannada, Karwar [Special Court for trial of cases filed under POCSO Act] for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 64(1), 65(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 4, 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: The petitioner – accused and family of de facto complainant came from Maharashtra State to Nandikatta village of Mundagod Taluk for cutting sugarcane crop, about a month back. They constructed a hut for staying there. On - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7742 CRL.P No. 101866 of 2025 18.01.2025 at about 12:00 noon, the accused came to the hut, where the victim aged about 12 years 2 months was there. He tightly closed her mouth when she was sleeping in the hut, took her from there to sugarcane field of one Shekhappa Mahadevappa Tholali at Nelliharivi Village of Kalaghatagi Taluk, Dharwad District. On 19.01.2025 at about 04:00 p.m. at a small tin house, where the accused committed aggravated and penetrative sexual assault repeatedly against the victim and he also made criminal intimidation to eliminate her if she discloses this aspect to anyone. As soon as CWs.1, 7 and 8 came there in search of the victim, the accused left and ran away from the spot. Accordingly, the first informant lodged a complaint, which led to the registration of an FIR and initiation of investigation. During the course of investigation, the accused was arrested and was remanded to judicial custody. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against the accused. The petitioner filed bail petition before the Trial Court and same was rejected by the Trial Court. Hence, the petitioner preferred this petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7742 CRL.P No. 101866 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations made against the petitioner are false. The petitioner and victim were loving each other. The petitioner aged about 19 years and he is in judicial custody since 25.02.2025 and he is the only bread earner in the family. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. 5. Learned HCGP contended that the petitioner has committed a serious offence of aggravated and penetrative sexual assault on a minor girl, hence, there is prima facie case against him. If petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper the prosecution witnesses, he may influence the victim and there is likelihood of he fleeing away from justice. Accordingly, he prayed for rejection of the bail petition. 6. Perused the materials available on record. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused eloped the minor girl and committed aggravated and penetrative assault on the minor girl. 7. From the perusal of statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she has clearly stated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7742 CRL.P No. 101866 of 2025 against the petitioner before the learned Magistrate, wherein she has stated that accused eloped her and committed aggravated and sexual assault on her inspite of her resistance. The primary purpose of recording the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is to ensure that the child’s statement is recorded properly, reliably and potentially for use in Court. As per the medical records, her hymen was ruptured. In POCSO offence, the medical examination of victim is pivotal in establishing the guilt and played a prominent role in substantiating elements of the offence. In the statement made by the victim girl under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., nowhere the victim has stated that she gave consent or she was willing to have such penetrative and aggravated sexual assault with the petitioner. Even in the statement under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., she has stated that it was forcible sexual intercourse on her. 8. Having regard to the materials placed on record, the prosecution has placed prima facie materials against the petitioner as to his involvement in the alleged offences which attracts the provisions of POCSO Act. If petitioner is released - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7742 CRL.P No. 101866 of 2025 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. Note: The observations made herein are only for disposal of the petition. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE RSH /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29