Praveena vs State Of Karnataka & Others

H.P. Sandesh, J

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.5/2021 of Dharmasthala Police Station,

Dakshina Kannada for the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act pending in Spl.C.No.48/2021 on the

file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1 (POCSO) D.K., Mangaluru.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State.

The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant filed a complaint alleging that she was subjected to sexual act against her wish in the month

of July, 2020 and again she was subjected to sexual act twice. In the month of August also she was subjected to sexual act and when the victim girl

complained about stomach pain, she was subjected to medical examination and found that she was six months pregnant. Based on the complaint, the

case has been registered. The victim girl was also examined before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the allegation is subjecting the victim girl to sexual act in the month of August and

she was pregnant of six months when she was examined in the month of January and hence, prosecution theory cannot be accepted. Learned counsel

would further submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and there is no ingredient attracting the offence under Section 376 of IPC. Even in

the complaint, it is clear that it is a consensual act and hence, the petitioner is entitled for bail.

Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the girl was only 13 years old and the first act was done in July

2020 and the victim is subject to medical examination on 23.01.2021, but by that time, she was pregnant of 27 weeks i.e. 6 1/2 months. When such

being the material available on record, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal of the material on record, the fact that the victim girl was 13 years old is not disputed. The

victim girl has also made a specific allegation in her complaint and in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she has stated this petitioner has

subjected her to sexual act and on account of the said act of the petitioner, she became pregnant and her pregnancy was noticed only when she

complained about stomach pain and subjected to ultrasound scan. The very delay in lodging the complaint is not a ground to enlarge the petitioner on

bail. The averments made in the complaint, medical evidence and the statement of the victim disclose that there is a prima facie case against the

petitioner. Hence, it is not a fit case for exercising the discretion under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

The criminal petition is rejected.