- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:225 CRL.P No. 102349 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102349 OF 2024 (439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: PARASHURAM, S/O YAMANURAPPA HOSAMANI, AGE: 23 YEARS, R/O. JINNAPUR, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583237. … PETITIONER (BY SRI A.M.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH KOPPAL WOMEN POLICE STATION, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD. 2. SHARANAPPA S/O SANNANAGAPPA UPPAR, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. JINNAPUR, TQ. AND DIST: KOPPAL-583237. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; R2-NOTICE SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON REGULAR BAIL IN SPL.SC.POCSO NO.28/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND FTSC-1 AT KOPPAL IN CRIME NO.20/2024 ON THE FILE OF KOPPAL WOMEN POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 363, 376(1) OF IPC AND U/S 4 OF POCSO ACT, 2012. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.10 11:22:45 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:225 CRL.P No. 102349 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI ORAL ORDER This petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘Cr.PC’) for grant of regular bail in Crime no.20/2024 by Koppal Women Police Station for offences punishable under Section 363, 376 (1) of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act’). 2. Sri A.M.Malipatil, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as per case of prosecution, alleged incident occurred on 28.03.2024. However complaint was filed on 05.04.2024 after delay of 7 days without proper explanation. It was submitted as per complainant, on 28.03.2024 at 8.00 p.m. when complainant, his wife and victim were sleeping in their house, his wife became ill. When she came back after buying medicine at 8.00 p.m., she found victim missing. After they were unable to trace - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:225 CRL.P No. 102349 of 2024 her, they registered complaint. It was stated that age of victim was 16 years 2 months as on said date. She was traced by police with petitioner at Bengaluru on 11.04.2024. 3. It was submitted, as per statement of victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC, victim knew petitioner since 3 years and there was quarrel between family of victim and petitioner. About 3 months earlier, she had spoken to petitioner over phone and 2 months earlier, petitioner had called her to come near stream. When she went there, he had kissed once and committed rape. Thereafter when her parents intended to perform her marriage, she decided to elope with petitioner. Therefore she went to Metagal road and called petitioner using someone else’s phone. After he came there, they went to Arur village in Tamilnadu by boarding a lorry. There they stayed in a temple for few days when she fell sick, they decided to return. On route when they reached Bengaluru, they were traced by police and brought home. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:225 CRL.P No. 102349 of 2024 4. It was further submitted medical examination report of victim would indicate her age as 17 years and would not show any injuries indicating exertion of physical force. It was therefore submitted that petitioner had not committed any offence as alleged and was falsely implicated. It was submitted, age of petitioner was 23 years while that of victim was 16 years. It was submitted, prosecution had already filed charge sheet on 15.05.2024 and petitioner was in custody since 11.04.2024. It was submitted, even as per statement of victim, they had known to each other since 3 years and victim had voluntarily traveled with petitioner and there was absence of any threat, intimidation or violence or brutality. Hence submitted petitioner was entitled for bail as 23 witnesses were cited and competion of trial was likely to take time. On said ground sought for allowing petition. 5. Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent no.1 on other hand opposed petition. It was submitted as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:225 CRL.P No. 102349 of 2024 Independent Thought v. Union of India reported in (2017) 10 SCC 800, consent for sexual intercourse was not valid defence in case of offences under POCSO Act and where victim was aged below 18 years. It was further submitted, even in her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, victim had stated that petitioner had committed rape. Therefore subsequent travel with petitioner would not be of any consequence. It was submitted, petitioner was also a resident of same village as victim and in case of grant of bail, there was every possibility of petitioner influencing witnesses. On said ground sought rejection of petition. 6. Heard learned counsel. Respondent no.2 though served remained absent. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioner is entitled for regular bail with conditions?” 7. From above, case of prosecution against petitioner is that on 28.03.2024, complainant found victim - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:225 CRL.P No. 102349 of 2024 missing from home and was unable to trace her. Missing complaint was given on 05.04.2024 and on 11.04.2024, victim was found with petitioner at Bengaluru. As per statement of victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC, she stated that she knew petitioner since 3 years, there was quarrel between family of petitioner and victim and when victim met petitioner as per his call near village stream, he had kissed her once and committed rape once. Thereafter when her parents insisted on performing her marriage, she eloped with petitioner. As per Birth Certificate, date of birth of victim was 15.01.2008. Therefore as on date of incident, she was aged 16 years and 2 months while that of petitioner 23 years. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case of Dharmendra Singh v. The State (Govt of NCT Delhi) reported in 2020 SCC Online Delhi 1267 factors to be considered while examining application for bail in case of offences under POCSO Act have been evolved. 8. On an analysis of material available prima facie, comparative age of petitioner and victim does not show - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:225 CRL.P No. 102349 of 2024 abnormal difference. Petitioner is also unmarried. Absence of allegation of threat, intimidation or violence and fact that victim stated to have gone with petitioner voluntarily would fall in favour of petitioner. Though age of victim at 16 years 2 months would be one of aggravating factors, comparative social standing of victim and petitioner does not indicate petitioner being in position of domination. Though they are from same village, they are not related to each other. And there are no allegations of petitioner being involved in similar or other offences. Charge sheet has been filed and trial is awaited. Since there are 23 witnesses cited, it might take some time. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Deshraj @ Musa v. State of Rajasthan disposed of on 04.10.2024 has granted bail to accused awaiting trial. Since investigation is completed, there would be no requirement of custodial interrogation. Infact as per Supreme Court in case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2012 (1) SCC 49, purpose of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:225 CRL.P No. 102349 of 2024 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. Offences alleged do not attract presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act. 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.20/2024 of Koppal Women Police Station for offences punishable under Section 363, 376 (1) of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, subject to following conditions: a) Petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for likesum to satisfaction of trial Court. b) He shall not leave jurisdiction of Koppal District without prior permission. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:225 CRL.P No. 102349 of 2024 c) He shall not contact prosecutrix 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) Petitioner shall mark his attendance once every fifteen days before Koppal Women Police Station. h) Violation of any of conditions would entitle cancellation of bail. i) It is clarified that views expressed are prima facie and shall not influence final outcome after trial. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE CLK CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 5