SRI. KUMAR vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under

Section 363 of IPC registered in respondent - police station Crime No.231/2017. Subsequently, the alleged offence under Sections 8 and 12 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act were also added in the case.

Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments that father of the victim girl lodged the complaint, wherein he has stated that

the grand mother of victim told before him that herself and victim together went to the land on 16.08.2017 and at about 4.30p.m. the victim girl

told that she is going to answer first call of nature, but in the meantime the accused person came and he kidnapped the victim girl. It is further stated

that though they made search of the victim girl, she was not traced. On the basis of the same, initially the FIR came to be registered for the offence

under Section 363, but subsequently, even the offence under the provisions of POCSO Act were also inserted in the case.

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.

Referring to the complaint averments and also the objection statement filed by the prosecution before the trial Court, more particularly

paragraph No.3 of the objection statement, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged offence under Sections 8 and 12 of

POCSO Act cannot be made out. He also submitted that the statement of the victim itself shows that there was a love affair between the two and

even according to the allegations as per the statement of the victim girl, the only allegation that the petitioner was embracing her while sleeping and

he kissed her. Hence, it is his submission that looking to the prosecution material there is no prima-facie case of involvement of petitioner in

committing the said offence. He also submitted that now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Hence, petitioner may be

enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has submitted that looking to the statement of the victim

girl given on oath before the Magistrate Court, she has clearly stated regarding the petitioner forcibly took her on motorcycle, committed offence of

kidnapping and so also, she has stated that he has committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. Learned HCGP also submitted that he is having

the provisional opinion of the Doctor, who examined the victim girl, and final opinion is yet to be received. Hence, in view of these materials, the

application and the request of the accused may be considered after examination of the victim girl before the trial Court.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

The materials placed on record prima-facie show that petitioner as well as the victim girl went away, whether it is kidnap or the victim herself

went along with the petitioner is a matter of trial. But looking to the statement of the victim girl given on oath before the JMFC Court, she has

clearly alleged that she was taken by the petitioner forcibly on his two wheeler vehicle, thereafter, he also committed forcible sexual intercourse on

her. Regarding the age factor of the victim, according to both sides, her date of birth is 01.08.2000, admittedly she was a minor as on the date of

alleged incident. Hence, in view of the above, the petition is rejected. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to move the concerned Court

after examination of victim girl.