- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3789 CRL.P No. 103797 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103797 OF 2024 [439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)] BETWEEN: MANSUR @ MANSUR @ MANSU S/O. LATE DOULA SAB, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER TRUCK, R/O. WARD NO.27, CHAPPARADAHALLI, HOSAPETE, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583201. … PETITIONER (BY SRI B.ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (THROUGH HOSAPETE EXTENSION P.S.) REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD-580001. 2. SMT. AFSANA W/O. UMAR, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. WARD NO.17, CHALUVADI KERE, HOSAPETE, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583212. (MOTHER OF VICTIM) … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI MAQBOOLAHAMED M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN (CRIME NO.52/2024 REGISTERED IN HOSAPETE EXTENSION P.S. PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 8 AND 12 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 PENDING TRIAL OF THE CASE, BEFORE THE ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, F.T.S.C.-I BALLARI. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.02.27 15:55:42 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3789 CRL.P No. 103797 of 2024 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 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in Crime no.52/2024 by Hosapete Extension Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’ for short) by sole accused (petitioner). 2. Sri B.Anwar Basha, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, prosecution case as per complaint filed on 12.09.2024 at 5:30 p.m. petitioner who was a relative of victim sought permission to take victim to buy her something to eat and took her to his room and touched her inappropriately and attempted to remove her clothes. Petitioner was also alleged to have opened his mobile and showed pornographic photos to child and asking her to do likewise. When child protested and told him that she would inform her mother, petitioner asked forgiveness, bought her chips and asked her not to disclose incident to anyone. When victim informed her mother about - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3789 CRL.P No. 103797 of 2024 incident, victim’s father went to house of petitioner to enquire, but he had left and did not return. Alleging sexual assault on victim by petitioner, complaint was filed. Same was registered in Crime no.52/2024 (supra). 3. It was submitted, complaint was filed five days after incident without proper explanation. It was submitted, petitioner was arrested on 21.09.2024 and charge sheet was filed after completion of investigation on 19.10.2024. It was submitted, there were contradictions in statement recorded under Section 161 and under Section 164 of CrPC insofar as incident. It was submitted, none of offences alleged were punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Infact, offence under Section 8 of POCSO Act was punishable with imprisonment from 3 years upto 5 years while that under Section 12 of POCSO Act was punishable with imprisonment upto 3 years. Therefore, offences alleged were not heinous. It was submitted, Medical Examination Report of victim did not report any injuries as would corroborate prosecution version. It was submitted, since charge sheet was already filed, need of petitioner’s presence for custodial interrogation would be non- existent. On said grounds sought for allowing petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3789 CRL.P No. 103797 of 2024 4. On other hand, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for respondent no.1 – State opposed petition. It was submitted, offences alleged against petitioner were commission of sexual assault on a minor child aged 7 years and same would indicate extreme gravity of offences. Fact that petitioner was a relative and taken advantage of trust aggravated cause. It was submitted, petitioner’s mobile phone was seized and sent for FSL report. It was also submitted, statement of victim was recorded and she had supported prosecution case. On said grounds sought for rejection. 5. Sri Maqboolahamed M. Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.2 – complainant opposed petition. It was submitted, in addition to reiterating submissions of Government Pleader, it was submitted fact that petitioner was a close relative of victim would render it possible for tampering with prosecution witnesses and subverting trial. It was also submitted, presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act would come into play. On said grounds sought for rejection of bail petition. 6. Heard learned counsel. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3789 CRL.P No. 103797 of 2024 7. From above, only point that would arise for consideration is: “Whether petitioner is entitled for grant of regular bail on conditions? 8. This petition is for regular bail by sole accused in Crime no.52/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act. 9. Offence of sexual assault under Section 8 of POCSO Act is punishable with imprisonment from 3 years upto 5 years while that of sexual harassment under Section 12 bears punishment of upto 3 years. Though nature of offences alleged are not heinous, they are grave as they are alleged to have been committed on a child of 7 years. Indeed, Medical Examination Report of victim does not indicate any external injuries and there is a delay of five days in lodging complaint, but victim has consistently implicated petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 161 as well as under Section 164 of CrPC. Fact that petitioner is aged 28 years while victim is 7 years would indicate perversion. Even fact that petitioner was a relative alleged to have taken advantage of same would be another aggravating factor. Though instant case is not a - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3789 CRL.P No. 103797 of 2024 case of penetrative sexual assault, but inappropriate touching and showing pornographic photos to victim about which victim has made clear assertion require to be taken into account. Possibility of petitioner trying intimidate victim and influence prosecution witnesses would be another factor for denial of bail. 10. For aforesaid reasons, point for consideration is answered in negative. Petition is dismissed. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE CLK CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 12