Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9357 (KAR)

CHANDRASHEKHAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/200361/2025 · 2025-04-29

S Rachaiah

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2578 CRL.P No. 200361 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200361 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O HANAMANTHARAYA PATIL @ BIRADAR, AGE:22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BAPPARAGI VILLAGE, TQ.HUNASAGI, DIST.YADGIR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (THROUGH NARAYANPURA POLICE STATION, HUNASAGI, IN CRIME NO.41/2014) KALABURAGI, REPRESENTED BY, THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KALABURAGI-585107. 2. SMT. CHANDAMMA W/O SHIVAPPA MADAR, AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. HULIBENCHI, AT PRESENT RESIDING, R/O. BAPPARAGI VILLAGE. TQ. HUNASAGI, DIST.YADGIR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED) Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2578 CRL.P No. 200361 of 2025 THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C (OLD) U/SEC 483 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE PETITION AND PETITIONER MAY KINDLY BE RELEASED ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.41/2024 OFFENCES U/SEC 64(2)(m), 65(2), 318(2), 351(2) OF BNS AND SEC 6 OF POCSO ACT 2012 AND SEC. 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST ACT 1989 OF NARAYANAPURA POLICE STATION IN SPL CASE NO.297/2024 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIR. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) The petitioner who is the accused has approached this Court seeking regular bail in Spl.Case (POCSO) No.297/2024 (arising out of Crime No.41/2024 registered by Narayanpur Police Station) pending on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 65(2), 318(2), 351(2) of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v-a), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2578 CRL.P No. 200361 of 2025 2. Factual matrix of the case: The complainant namely, Chandramma lodges a complaint stating that she left her daughter at Upparagi village to take care of her mother Halamma and she went to Hasan along with her husband for doing coolie work. On 01.08.2024, the complainant and her husband came back to her village to look after their children. She noticed that her daughter who is the victim in the case was not happy and she was always sitting in the house as she was suffering from tiredness. When she enquired with the victim, she narrated that she is having some thrust. Therefore, the complainant took the victim to the hospital on 07.08.2024. The doctor, after examining the victim, stated that the victim is five months’ pregnant. Thereafter, the complainant was told that the petitioner who belongs to kuruba community was loving the victim from the last one year and he was moving closely with her daughter assuring that he would marry her. It is further stated that - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2578 CRL.P No. 200361 of 2025 he had sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. Consequently, she became pregnant. It is also stated in the complaint that when the victim told the petitioner that she is pregnant, the petitioner refused to marry her. After hearing the said news, the complainant lodged the complaint stating that her daughter is aged about 15 years and she has been subjected to sexual assault by the petitioner etc. Based on the said complaint, the respondent-Police after registering the case, conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet. 3. Heard Sri.Shivakumar Malipatil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences. He is aged about 22 years working as agriculturist and he is a permanent resident of Bapparagi - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2578 CRL.P No. 200361 of 2025 village, Hunasagi Taluk. He has been falsely implicated in this case. There is delay in lodging the complaint. Moreover, investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been submitted. Hence, he is not required for investigation. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. Making such submissions, he prayed for allowing the petition. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposed the said submissions and he submitted that the petitioner knowingly that the victim is aged about 15 years, committed sexual assault on her consequently, she became pregnant. Even though the investigation has been completed, DNA report in respect of paternity of the fetus is required to be obtained. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there may be chances of threatening the prosecution witnesses. Since prima facie, the petitioner has committed an offence which is heinous in nature, it is not appropriate to grant him bail. Making such submissions, he prayed for dismissing the petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2578 CRL.P No. 200361 of 2025 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge sheet, it appears from the records that the victim made her statement before the Magistrate that she was loving the petitioner and stayed for eight months by maintaining the cordial relationship between themselves and now she is five months’ pregnant. She further requested the learned Magistrate not to take any action against the petitioner. Further, she has stated that she is ready to marry the petitioner. Having considered her statement and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that it is not appropriate to grant him bail for the reason that the petitioner has not shown any leniency towards her to marry her. Even assuming that she is ready to marry him, the fact remains that, she is minor and she has to wait for another three years to complete 18 years. Be that as it may, the petitioner has not made out a case to grant him bail. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2578 CRL.P No. 200361 of 2025 7. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32 CT:PK