Karnataka High Court
Praveena Kumara vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1073/2022
BETWEEN:
PRAVEENA KUMARA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
S/O CHANDRU L.N.,
R/O KOTTANAGATTA VILLAGE,
SHRAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573135. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI AIYAPPA K.G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY SHRAVANABELAGOLA P S,
HASSAN DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.K. KRISHNA KUMAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.114/2021 REGISTERED BY SHRAVANABELAGOLA POLICE
STATION, HASSAN (SPL.C.NO.498/2021 ON THE FILE OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1, HASSAN
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLEL UNDER SECTION 376 OF IPC,
SECTIONS 6 AND 17 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTIONS 9 AND 10 OF
PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT, 2006.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking
regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.114/2021 of
Shravanabelagola Police Station, Hassan District, for the offence
punishable under Section 376 of IPC, Sections 6 and 17 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO
Act' for short) and Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child
Marriage Act, 2006.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent-State.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that the victim girl aged about 16 years 2 months was subjected
to sexual act by the petitioner and hence the offences punishable
under Section 376 of IPC, Sections 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act
and Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of the Child Marriage
Act is invoked.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
there are contradictions in 161 and 164 statement of the victim
girl. The learned counsel submits that the very medical report is
doubtful and also the learned counsel tried to convince this Court
that for various reasons the hymen will be torn. Hence, there is
a doubt with regard to medical opinion and this petitioner is in
custody from 25.09.2021 and investigation has already been
completed and charge-sheet is filed and no need of custodial
trial and hence he may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that the
victim girl is subjected to medical examination and hymen is torn
and the opinion of the doctor is that she was subjected to sexual
act. The learned counsel submits that in her 164 statement, she
has categorically stated before the learned Magistrate that she
was subjected to sexual act 2-3 times against her wish. Hence,
there is a prima facie case against the petitioner.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent-State and looking into the factual aspects of the
case, it is not in dispute that he victim girl is aged about 16
years 2 months and she is a minor as defined under Section 2(d)
of the POCSO Act. The other material available before the Court
is that the victim was subjected to medical examination and
hymen was torn and also the opinion of the doctor is that she
was subjected to sexual act and apart from that, 164 statement
made before the learned Magistrate is clear that this petitioner
subjected her for sexual act against her wish and when all these
materials are against the petitioner, it is not a fit case to
exercise the discretionary power in favour of the petitioner. The
other contention that investigation has already been completed
and charge-sheet is filed and no need of custodial trial, cannot
be accepted. The Apex Court in its recent judgment has held
that if sexual act is done against a child, it is an offence against
the humanity and this Court has to take note that the special
enactment was brought in with an intention to protect the
children from sexual abuse and sexual assault and here is a case
of penetrative assault against the minor. Hence, it is not a fit
case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition is rejected. However, liberty is given to the
petitioner to approach this Court after examination of the victim
and the doctor.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
