Karnataka High Court
Shri Akashay Singh S/O Ashok Singh vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 May, 2023
Bench: V.Srishanandapresided Byvsnj
-1-
CRL.P No. 100069 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100069 OF 2023 (439-)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. AKASHAY SINGH S/O. ASHOK SINGH,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: LABORER,
R/O: BEHIND PRIMARY SCHOOL,
MUNIRABAD,
TQ: AND DIST: KOPPAL-583236.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. PAVITRA HAVALDAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.C. JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
CHANDRASHEKAR (THROUGH MUNIRABAD P.S.)
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Date: 2023.05.26
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
14:53:54 -0700
2. SMT. RENUKA W/O. VENKATESH DODDAMANI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: LABORER,
R/O: CHALLAYYA CAMP, MUNIRABAD,
TQ: & DIST: KOPPAL- 583236.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1,
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
-2-
CRL.P No. 100069 of 2023
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION I FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON
BAIL IN SPL.S.C (POCSO) NO. 40/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-I AT
KOPPAL, IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO. 192/2022
REGISTERED IN MUNIRABAD POLICE STATION, FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 376, 506, 201 OF IPC AND
SEC. 6 OF POSCSO ACT 2012 AND SECTION 67(B) OF
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000, PENDING TRIAL OF
THE CASE, IN SO FOR AS THIS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Smt.Pavitra Havaldar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1 - State.
2. This petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., with the following prayer:
"To enlarge the petitioner/accused No.1 on
bail in SPL.S.C (POCSO) NO. 40/2022 pending on
the file of Additional District and Sessions jUdge
FTSC-I at Koppal, in connection with Crime No.
192/2022 registered in Munirabad police station,
for the offences punishable U/sec. 376, 506, 201
of ipc and Sec. 6 of POSCSO Act 2012 and Section
67(b) of Information Technology Act 2000,
pending trial of the case, in so for as this
petitioner is concerned."
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
CRL.P No. 100069 of 2023
Upon a complaint lodged by the mother of the victim
girl, Munirabad police registered a case in Crime
No.192/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections
376, 506 of IPC read with 6 of POCSO Act.
4. Gist of the complaint averments reveal that the
victim girl was aged 15 years and was pursuing her
education in 10th standard. On 14.07.2022 at about 1.30
p.m. the victim girl was found crying in the house and on
enquiry by the complainant, she revealed that the
petitioner was following the victim girl when she was
visiting the school and proposed that he is intending to
have a love affair with her and caught hold of her on
08.11.2021 at 4.30 p.m. when she was returning from the
school, took her to his house and had forcible sexual
intercourse. Again on 05.12.2021 taking advantage of
loneliness of the victim girl, he took her to the house and
had forcible sexual intercourse. On receipt of such
information, complainant approached the police and
lodged complaint on 15.07.2022.
CRL.P No. 100069 of 2023
5. After registering the case, police thoroughly
investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet and the
case is now pending in Spl.S.C.POCSO No.40/2022 before
the Special Court.
6. Attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an
order of grant of bail is turned down by the learned District
Judge in Spl.S.C.POCSO No.40/2022 by order dated
14.11.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.
7. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition,
learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended
that as per Section 35 of POCSO Act, the trial has to be
completed within six months from the date of filing of the
charge sheet and since there is no compliance, the
petitioner is entitled for grant of bail.
8. He also contended that the victim girl is a
consenting party to the alleged act and therefore, no
offence whatsoever is made out which would attract the
CRL.P No. 100069 of 2023
ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioner
and sought for grant of bail.
9. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader opposes the bail petition by contending that the
victim girl was a minor and her consent, if any, in such
case is immaterial and therefore sought for sought for
rejection of the bail.
10. She also contended that having regard to the
number of cases pending before the trial Court and also
other available paraphernalia, even though statute
prescribes the period of six months for completion of trial,
the same cannot be achieved and that should not be a
ground for enlarging the petitioner on bail and therefore,
sought for rejection of bail.
11. In view of the rival contentions of the parties,
this Court has perused the material on record
meticulously. On such perusal, it is seen that the victim
girl was aged 15 years and was pursuing her education in
CRL.P No. 100069 of 2023
10th standard. The petitioner having followed the victim
girl while she was visiting school and caught hold of her
and tricked her with alleged love affair and took her to his
house and had forcible sexual intercourse.
12. Whether at all the incident as is enunciated by
the prosecution has taken place or not cannot be decided
by this Court at this stage by holding a mini trial as the
same would prejudice the case of the parties before the
trial Court. Prima facie the material available on record
including the medical records would make out a case for
the prosecution.
13. Further, the theory of consent is enunciated by
the counsel for the petitioner cannot also be countenanced
in law in view of the fact that consent of a minor girl is
immaterial while appreciating the case of the prosecution
and the alleged offence. The said view of this Court is
fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court reported in
(2017) 10 SCC 800 in the case of Independent
Thought vs. Union of India and Another.
CRL.P No. 100069 of 2023
14. The next ground on which the learned counsel
for the petitioner seeking bail is delay in conclusion of the
trial. As rightly contended by the learned High Court
Government Pleader, having regard to the number of
cases pending before the Special Court to conclude the
trial in time bound manner, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the said contention of the petitioner cannot be
countenanced in law.
15. Taking note of the fact that the complaint itself
is dated 15.07.2022 and charge sheet having been filed
and the matter being progressed, this Court is of the
opinion that there is no inordinate delay in conclusion of
the trial which would entitle the petitioner to seek an order
of grant of bail.
16. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered
opinion that none of the grounds urged in the petition are
sufficient enough to exercise special power vested in this
Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to consider the request
for grant of bail.
CRL.P No. 100069 of 2023
17. Accordingly, the bail petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SH
