Farooq @ Farooq Ahmed vs The State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor.

It is alleged that the petitioner is guilty of having committed offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, 420 of IPC read with Sections 4, 6 & 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

It is alleged that the complainant''s daughter is said to be a minor and she was studying in the X Standard. The petitioner is said to have known her and he used to visit her house during the absence of her parents and it so transpires that he had engaged the complainant''s daughter in sex without the knowledge of her parents. The daughter of the complainant, it is said had also not revealed the same to the parents. However, when she became pregnant she was compelled to confess that the petitioner had sex with her and hence on the basis of the allegations that it was the petitioner who had forcible sex with the daughter of the complainant and therefore was guilty of the aforesaid offences, a case has been registered. The petitioner having approached the Court for bail, the same has been rejected on the ground that the girl was a minor and hence there is a clear case of commission of the offences complained by the petitioner even if it could be established that it is consensual. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would point out that the allegation is not of a recent sex assault but that the alleged assault is said to have taken place several months prior to the complaint and if it is alleged that it is the petitioner who has committed the assault and thereby the complainant''s daughter has become pregnant. It is contended that it would be a matter to be established at the trial and the allegation that the incident that had taken place several months ago itself would be a ground to enlarge him on bail.

The State Public Prosecutor however would point out that minority of the girl concerned itself is sufficient to deny the relief sought for, the accused having succeeded in seducing the girl when she was alone and having had sex with her, the fact that she has not revealed the incident because of her innocence or for fear of being reprimanded by her parents would have to be taken note of.

However, in the light of the fact that there was delay in the complaint of the alleged assault, the parentage of the child as well as the fact of the petitioner being the assailant would have also to be established at the trial.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) with one surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly seek to influence the prosecution witnesses

(iii) He shall appear before the Investigation officer as and when required and shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer.

(iv) The petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.

(v) In case of violation of any of these conditions, the Court is at liberty to pass suitable orders.