Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1549 (KAR)

Naveen v. State of Karnataka

2017-11-22

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 376D r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act registered in respondent - police station Crime No.53/2017. 2. The victim girl herself is the complainant in this case. The case of the prosecution as per the complaint averments are, the victim girl has alleged that accused No.1 Santhosh used to call her to a dilapidated half constructed building, when she went there, by threatening her, he has committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. Similar allegations are made even against the present petitioner who is accused No.2 that he also used to call her to a place and has committed sexual intercourse on her. On the basis of the said complaint, case was registered for the alleged offences. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the prosecution material and also the medical records has submitted that victim was major as on the date of alleged incident. She was a consenting party to the said sexual intercourse. Hence, Section 376 of IPC will not be attracted in this case. He has submitted that even perusing the entire materials placed by the prosecution no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. It is also submitted that the charge sheet has been filed by the Investigation Officer even before obtaining laboratory report. Hence, there is false implication of petitioner-accused No.2 for the alleged offences. He is innocent. By imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that as regards the age of the victim girl is concerned, her transfer certificate is produced which shows her date of birth as 6.3.1999. Therefore as on the date of alleged incident she was a minor. He has also submitted that regarding the sexual intercourse on the victim girl is concerned, DNA report is obtained wherein the expert's gave opinion that petitioner is biological father of the baby of the victim girl. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail. 6. Therefore as on the date of alleged incident she was a minor. He has also submitted that regarding the sexual intercourse on the victim girl is concerned, DNA report is obtained wherein the expert's gave opinion that petitioner is biological father of the baby of the victim girl. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail. 6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. 7. The statement of the victim girl that she was below the age of 18 years is supported by the documentary evidence i.e., her transfer certificate. Contents of the complaint shows petitioner herein by threatening the victim girl and by using abusive words, used to secure her to a place and committed sexual intercourse on her many times. As per the DNA report present petitioner is the biological father of the baby of the victim girl. Considering these materials, so also, the statement given by the victim girl before the Court under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., I am of the opinion that prosecution has placed prima facie material to show the involvement of petitioner-accused No.2 in committing the alleged offences. Hence, it is not a fit case for grant of bail. 8. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.