Karnataka High Court
Veeresh S/O Pandappa Chawan vs State Of Karnataka on 23 May, 2023
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
CRL.P No. 100207 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. 100207 OF 2023 (439-)
BETWEEN:
VEERESH S/O. PANDAPPA CHAWAN,
AGE: 25 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: MUCHAKHANDI
L. T. NO. 1 N,
DIST: BAGALKOT,
PIN- 587101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAGBOOL AHMED PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
BY BAGALKOT, TOWN POLIC STATION,
KATTIMANI
Date: 2023.05.25
10:56:36 -0700 REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD-11.
2. VASUDEV S/O. NARAYAN NAYAK,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MUCHAKHANDI L.T. NO. 1
-2-
CRL.P No. 100207 of 2023
NOW AT VINAYAK NAGAR, 2ND CROSS,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1,
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL WHO IS ACCUSED
NO.1 IN SPL CASE NO. 72/2020 (CRIME NO. 72/2020) ON THE
FILE OF BAGALKOT TOWN POLICE STATION, DIST, BAGALKOT,
FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/SEC. 363, 354, 354(A), 376,
376(1), 376(2), (n), 506, 109, 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 4, 6 OF
POCSO ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Heard Sri Maqbool Ahmed Patil, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned
High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-
State and perused the records.
2. This Petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.PC.
with the following prayer:
CRL.P No. 100207 of 2023
"Wherefore, the petitioner most humbly
prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
enlarge him on bail who is Accused No.1 in SPl.
Case No.72/2020 (Crime No.72/2020) on the
file of Bagalkot Town Police Station, Dist.
Bagalkot, for the alleged offences U/Sec.363,
354, 354(A), 376, 376(1), 376(2)(n), 506, 109,
34 of I.P.C. and Sec.4, 6 pf POCSO Act, in the
interest of justice and equity."
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
A complaint came to be lodged by the father of the
victim girl 04.12.2020, Bagalkot Town Police registered a
case in Crime No.72/2020 initially for the offence
punishable under Section 363 of IPC.
4. Gist of the complaint averments reveal that
daughter of the complainant was found missing when the
complainant had visited her relatives house on
02.12.2020, thereafter, they kept a search for victim girl
with the relatives and friends but she was not found.
Same was intimated to the complainant by wife of the
CRL.P No. 100207 of 2023
complainant and they tried to search for the victim girl and
she was not found. Accordingly, they approached police
for taking action and lodged a complaint. After registering
the case, police have investigated the matter and traced
the victim girl and arrested the petitioner. On the
statement given by the victim girl, police invoked the
offences punishable under Sections 109, 354, 354(A), 376.
376(1), 376(2)(n), 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and
Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the
petitioner and filed the charge sheet. The trial is
commenced.
5. The attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an
order of grant of bail is turned down by the learned II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot by order
dated 31.03.2021 in Spl. Case No.11/2021. Thereafter,
the petitioner is before this Court. Before the Trial Court,
victim girl has given her statement.
CRL.P No. 100207 of 2023
6. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition,
learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Maqbool Ahmed Patil,
and vehemently contended that there is an inordinate
delay in lodging the complaint. The victim girl while
deposing before the Court has given several
contradictions, which would prima facie expose the doubt
in prosecution case and therefore continuation of the
petitioner in judicial custody is no longer warranted having
regard to the charge sheet is filed and sought for grant of
bail.
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader opposes the bail petition by contending that
admittedly the victim girl is minor less than 14 years and
the material on record including the statement of the
victim girl would reveal that the petitioner had forcible
sexual intercourse with the victim girl and therefore, she
sought for rejection of bail.
CRL.P No. 100207 of 2023
8. Perused the material on record meticulously in
view of the rival contentions of the parties.
9. On perusal of the material on record it is seen
that the prima-facie material on record go to show that
there was a physical relationship between the petitioner
and the victim girl resulting a victim girl becoming
pregnant. Therefore, ingredients to attract Section
376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act,
2012, prima facie available on record. The contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner is the physical
relationship which is consensual one, taking note of the
definition of the child under the provisions of POCSO Act
and the amendment made to Section 375(sixthly) of the
Indian Penal Code, the consent of the victim girl who is
minor is immaterial while appreciating the case in hand.
The view taken by this Court is fortified in the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Independent Thought
Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2017) 10
SCC 800.
CRL.P No. 100207 of 2023
10. Further, in view of the victim girl has been
examined and has supported the case of prosecution, I am
of the 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. Hence, following
order is passed:
ORDER
The Criminal Petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM
