Sakib Pasha vs State Of Karnataka & Ors

Shivashankar Amarannavar, J

This petition is filed by sole accused under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to grant bail in Crime No.11/2025 of Kolar Women Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 126(2), 127(2), 351(2) and 65(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that, in the statement of the victim/complaint, the spot is stated to be car shed. But in further statement dated 04.03.2025, it is stated as a toilet. In the history given by the victim before the doctor, the alleged incident has stated to be a car shed. Therefore, considering the said aspect, there is a discrepancy with regard to the spot of the incident. The further statement recorded on 04.03.2025 does not indicate any endorsement with regard to translation of the statement given by the victim from Urdu to Kannada since, the victim is only knowing Urdu and same has been mentioned in her statements recorded earlier. The spot mahazar has been drawn in unused toilet and not the car shed, wherein it is stated that the door is under repair. In the additional charge sheet, there is mention regarding the clothes of the victim girl containing the seminal stains and DNA matching with each other as per the FSL report. The victim girl has stated in her complaint that, she had taken bath and washed her clothes. Now, the victim girl has been examined and therefore, there is no threat by the petitioner on the victim. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 05.02.2025 and as the charge sheet is filed and the victim is examined, the petitioner is not required for any further custodial interrogation. With these, he prayed to allow the petition.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State would contend that, the date of birth of the victim girl is 10.07.2010 and she was aged fourteen (14) years seven (7) months as on the date of incident. In the complaint and in the statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, the victim girl has specifically stated the acts of this petitioner taking her and having sexual intercourse forcibly by tying her hands and legs. On reading the evidence of P.W.1, there is nothing to disbelieve her evidence with regard to forcible sexual intercourse by the petitioner on her. The charge sheet materials show that, there is a prima-facie case against the petitioner for offences alleged against him. The offence alleged against the petitioner is a heinous offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to twenty (20) years. With these, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for parties, the Court has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

As per charge sheet, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner forcibly took the victim girl to a car shed and in the unused toilet, he had forcible sexual intercourse on her by tying her hands and legs and kept her in that place till next day morning and threatened her not to disclose otherwise he will take her life. The statement of the victim girl has been recorded and based on that case has been registered. The statement of the victim girl has also been recorded under Section 183 of BNSS. In both the statements, the victim girl has specifically stated the acts of this petitioner taking her forcibly into a car shed and having sexual intercourse on her by tying her hands and legs. The clothes of the victim girl has been seized by the doctor at the time of her examination i.e., panty, vulval slap and vaginal smear, they found with the seminal stains of human origin and the DNA profile are identical and matching with each other. The contention of the learned counsel is that, the victim girl has changed her clothes, taken bath and washed her clothes cannot be considered at this stage and as trial is in progress and they can be ascertained at the time of trial. The date of birth of the victim girl is 10.07.2010 and as on the date of the incident she was aged fourteen (14) years seven (7) months. Merely because, there is some discrepancy with regard to spot of the incident is not a ground for grant of bail. The offence alleged against the petitioner is a heinous offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to twenty (20) years.

Considering all the above aspects, the petitioner has not made out any grounds for grant of bail. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.