- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1 CRL.P No. 102823 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102823 OF 2024 (439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MR. PRAVEEN @ K. PRAVEEN S/O. YAMANOORAPPA BHAJENTRI, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC. LABOUR, R/O. ITAGI VILLAGE-583231, TQ. KUKANOOR, DIST. KOPPAL. … PETITIONER (BY SRI NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUKNOOR POLICE STATION, R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001. 2. SRI. MAHADEVAPPA S/O. HANCHALAPPA KORI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ITAGI VILLAGE-583231, TQ. KUKNOOR, DIST. KOPPAL. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; R2-NOTICE SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 483 OF BNSS,) SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.67/2024 PENDING BEFORE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1, AT KOPPAL REGISTERED WITH- KUKNOOR POLICE REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 344, 363, 376(2)(N) OF IPC AND SECTION 4 AND 6 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2012, IN SPL. S.C.POCSO NO.48/2024, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.07 15:10:58 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1 CRL.P No. 102823 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.67/2024 by Kuknoor Police Station for offences punishable under Section 344, 363, 376 (2) (n) of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO Act’). 2. Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for petitioner submitted case of prosecution was that on 13.05.2024 at about 10.30 p.m., accused went near house of victim and kidnapped her to Hosapete on Hero Splendor Plus motorcycle. He parked motorcycle in house of his relative in Gollarahalli and kidnapped her took her to a room in an under- construction building in Avalahalli, Bengaluru, where while victim was sleeping on 15.05.2024 he had sexual intercourse with her on promise of marrying her several times. And that she was traced there only on 17.06.2024. It was thus alleged - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1 CRL.P No. 102823 of 2024 that accused had kidnapped minor girl – victim on his motorcycle on promise of marrying her and has sexual intercourse with her and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 344, 363, 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act. 3. It was submitted petitioner has not committed any offence and was being falsely implicated. It was submitted, even as per prosecution, incident occurred on 13.05.2024. But, complaint was filed by father of victim only after ten days without proper explanation for delay. It was submitted age of victim was 16 years and 10 months. In her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, she merely stated that accused took her to Hosapete and then to Bengaluru. She also stated when he touched her body while sleeping and later when he had sexual intercourse with her, she did not protest or state that it was forcible. 4. It was submitted petitioner was arrested on 18.06.2024 and was in custody for nearly eight months. In meanwhile, investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed on 08.07.2024. In column 8 of medical report of victim - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1 CRL.P No. 102823 of 2024 referred to in charge sheet, age as per victim was 18 years, but as per person accompanying her it was 17 years. Further in column 12, it was stated victim had sexual intercourse with accused with consent almost daily. Further in column 26, rupture of hymen was noted as old without contusion at ruptured ends. And in column 29, medical officer opined possibility of remote sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out, would not establish any of offences alleged. 5. It was submitted 24 witnesses were cited in charge sheet and completion of trial which had not yet started, was likely to be prolonged. It was submitted Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Deshraj @ Musa v. State of Rajasthan disposed of on 04.10.2024, taking note of fact that charge sheet was already filed and 12 witnesses cited, bail was granted by imposing condition. 6. It was further submitted this Court in Criminal Petition no.103073/2024 disposed of on 03.12.2024 [NC:2024:KHC-D:17755] under similar circumstances taking note of age of prosecutrix at 16 years and 9 months and charge sheet having been filed, granted bail on conditions. It was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1 CRL.P No. 102823 of 2024 submitted petitioner was law abiding citizen, only bread earner of his family consisting of his old aged parents, wife and minor son and as there was no one else to lookafter them and further on ground that he did not have any antecedents, sought for grant of bail by imposing any conditions, which he would abide by. 7. Smt.Girija S.Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent no.1 on other hand opposed petition. It was submitted as per certificate issued by school, date of birth of victim was 07.07.2007. Therefore as on date of incident, she was around 16 years and 10 months of age, well below 18 years stipulated in POCSO Act, within which there could be no valid consent for sexual intercourse. It was submitted, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Independent Thought v. Union of India reported in (2017) 10 SCC 800, had held consent for sexual intercourse was not valid defence in case of offences under POCSO Act where victim was aged below 18 years. It was further submitted, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, victim had clearly stated about petitioner taking her to Hosapete and thereafter to Bengaluru and having repeated sexual intercourse, which would substantiate offence - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1 CRL.P No. 102823 of 2024 under Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act. It was submitted, in case of grant of bail before recording of evidence of victim, there was possibility of petitioner influencing her and witnesses as petitioner is from same village. 8. Heard learned counsel. Respondent no.2 served remained absent. From above, point that arises for consideration is: “Whether petitioner is entitled for regular bail with conditions?” 9. Same is answered in affirmative for following reasons. 10. As per prosecution, petitioner is alleged to have kidnapped victim on 13.05.2024, when she was aged 16 years and 10 months initially to Hosapete and thereafter to Bengaluru, where they stayed together in a room in under- construction building. At that time, he indulged in sexual intercourse with her daily, on promise of marriage and thereby committed offences as stated above. 11. Admittedly, petitioner was arrested on 17.06.2024 and is in custody. In meanwhile, investigation has been - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1 CRL.P No. 102823 of 2024 completed and charge sheet filed and trial is awaited. It is seen, prosecution has cited not less than 24 witnesses. Material on record reveals inconsistency about age of victim, which requires to be established by prosecution during trial. Same is likely to take time. Till then, petitioner would not be needed for custodial interrogation. Though, consent of victim for sexual intercourse cannot be urged in case of offences under POCSO Act, there is no material about forced confinement or sexual intercourse. Petitioner and victim have stayed together for more than one month. Moreover, petitioner has already spent 8 months in custody as undertrial and does not have any criminal antecedents. Following, Deshraj’s case supra, petitioner is entitled for bail. Hence, this: ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused is released on bail in Crime no.67/2024 of Kuknoor Police Station for offences punishable under Section 344, 363, 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 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. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1 CRL.P No. 102823 of 2024 b) He shall make himself available for purpose of investigation as and when required and co- operate with investigation. c) He shall not leave jurisdiction of Koppal District without prior permission. d) He shall not contact prosecutrix either directly or indirectly either through any device or in- person. e) He shall not threaten or tamper with any prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly. f) He shall not indulge in any criminal activities. g) He shall be regular in attending Court proceedings. h) Petitioner shall mark his attendance once every fifteen days before Kuknoor Police Station. i) Violation of any of conditions would entitle cancellation of bail. j) It is clarified that views expressed are prima facie and shall not influence final outcome after trial. SD/- JUDGE CLK CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 8