K. Ramanjaneyalu @ K. Ramu vs The State of Karnataka

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the alleged offence punishable under

Section 363, 366, 342 and 376 of IPC and Section 4, 5(l) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered in

respondent - police station Crime No.223/2017.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made the submission referring to the complaint and other charge sheet materials, so also the

statement of victim girl recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., submitted that the alleged offence under Section 376 of IPC and even Section 4,

5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 will not be attracted in the said case. He made the submission that even

on earlier occasion also, the victim girl left the house and at that time, a complaint came to be filed and the statements of the mother of the victim

girl and sister came to be recorded by the police. Hence, he made the submission that, looking to the contents of statement recorded under Section

164 of Cr.P.C., there is no prima-facie case as against the present petitioner. Hence, learned counsel made the submission that by imposing

reasonable conditions, petitioner may be admitted to regular bail, as the investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed.

Per-contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the bail petition and submitted that the victim girl was aged 16 years and as on

the date of the alleged incident she was a minor and therefore, there cannot be a consent from the victim girl for the sexual intercourse. He made

the submission referring to the statement of the victim girl, both before the police and before the learned Magistrate Court at Bengaluru, which goes

to show that there was a sexual act in between the petitioner and the victim girl. In this connection, he also refers to the medical records and

submitted that even the medical records supports the case of the prosecution. Hence, he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted

with bail.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case.

Looking to the prosecution materials, the age of the victim girl is shown as 16 years and even the victim girl has given statement under Section

164 of Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate stating her age as 16 years, which prima-facie go to show that the victim girl is a minor when the

alleged incident took place. Looking to the materials, they go to show that there was sexual act in between the petitioner and the victim girl. The

petitioner cannot take the advantage of the consent or the marriage with the minor girl. The materials which also supported by the medical

evidence, wherein the doctor is also of the opinion regarding the hymeneal of the victim girl. Therefore, considering these materials placed on

record, I am of the opinion that it is not a case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner/accused.

Accordingly, the petition is hereby rejected.