Sri Vijay vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 5683 Kant

                           1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1540 OF 2021

BETWEEN:
SRI VIJAY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
S/O AYAPPA
R/AT KDM DIVISION
KADUMANE ESTATE
HANUBAL HOBLI
SAKALESHPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT 573165
                                          ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SUDARSHAN.L, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY SAKALESHPURA RURAL POLICE STATION
       REP. BY SPP.
       HIGH COURT
       BENGALURU 560001

2.     KUMARI SANJANA
       D/O CHINNADORAI
       AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
       R/AT KDM DIVISION
       KADUMANE ESTATE
       HANUBAL HOBLI
       SAKALESHPURA TALUK
       HASSAN DISTRICT 573165.
                                       ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.R.D.RENUKARADHYA-HCGP FOR R1
 R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
                              2

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
U/S.14A(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT CR.P.C, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 05.08.2021 IN SPL.C.NO.216/2021 ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
FTSC-1 AT HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.376,417 OF IPC
AND SEC.4 OF POCSO ACT AND SEC.3(1)(w)(i),3(2)(va) OF
SC/ST ACT.

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION  THROUGH  VIDEO  CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING;

                       JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the accused praying to

set aside the order dated 05.08.2021 passed by the

court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1,

at Hassan in Special case No.216/2021, thereby rejecting

his petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

2. Heard both side and perused the material on

record.

3. Respondent No.2 is served but there is no

representation.

4. It is alleged that the accused/appellant by

inducing the minor girl aged about 17 years, belonging to

Scheduled Caste, took her to his house and on an

assurance of marriage, committed penetrative sexual

assault, on account of which she became pregnant and

thereby committed the offences punishable under

Sections 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012, Sections 376, 417 of IPC and Sections

3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill, 2015.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has

contended that even according to the victim, there was a

love affair. He contends that there is nothing to suggest

that there was forcible sexual act committed by the

accused. He contends that accused is ready to marry the

victim as she has attained majority. Further submits that

accused is ready to abide by any conditions which may

imposed by this court and he may be enlarged on bail, as

he is languishing in judicial custody from 19.04.2021.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader on

the other hand has opposed grant of bail contending that

as per school records, victim's date of birth is

10.10.2003. Therefore, she was minor at the time of

commission of offence. He contends that in the event of

grant of bail, there are chances of accused threatening

the victim and thus hampering the case of prosecution.

He contends that there is no illegality committed by the

learned Sessions Judge in rejecting the prayer of the

appellant and therefore seeks to reject the appeal.

7. As per the material collected by the

prosecution, date of birth of the victim is 10.10.2003.

The incident took place in the month of October, 2020.

Therefore, she was below 18 years as on the date of

commission of the offence. Admittedly, the victim has

become pregnant and she has delivered a baby. Her

statement has been recorded under Section 164 of

Cr.P.C., which disclose that the accused has committed

forcible penetrative sexual assault on her. There is a

prima-facie case against the appellant. Victim's evidence

is yet to be recorded and therefore as rightly submitted

by the learned High Court Government Pleader, in the

event of his release at this stage, accused threatening or

influencing the victim is not ruled out. The learned

Sessions Judge taking into consideration all these

aspects, has rejected the prayer seeking bail.

Hence, the following;

ORDER

Appeal is dismissed.

Liberty is reserved to the appellant to move the

Sessions Court, once the victim's evidence is recorded.

The learned Sessions Judge shall expedite the recording

of victim's evidence.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BH