Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 372 (KAR)

Bhavsingh v. State Of Karnataka

2020-02-07

H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has sought for regular bail under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Crime No.98/2019 of Horti Police Station, Vijayapur district registered for the offences punishable under sections 323, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as IPC) and section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as POCSO Act). 2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that on 27.08.2019 one Sri Umesh, the Assistant Director, Social Welfare Department, Indi lodged a complaint against the present petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 323, 506 of IPC along with section 12 of the POCSO Act before the respondent-police. The said complaint was registered in the respondent police station Crime No.98/2019. The summary of the allegation made in the complaint is that the present petitioner is the warden of the hostel meant for high school boys in Nimbal L.T. being run by the Social Welfare Department. There are as many as seventy five students residing in the said hostel. The complainant received a telephonic information that the petitioner being the warden, is visiting the hostel in an inebriated condition and misbehaving with the inmates therein. He also visits the hostel in the midnight and sexually assaults and sexually harasses the students through his various sexual acts. The complainant, after visiting the hostel and holding enquiry, has lodged the complaint. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is by animosity by colleagues and other people who do not want him to continue in the hostel. He also submits that no children have complained against him and the police also have completed their investigation and filed charge sheet in the matter, as such, continuation of the accused in judicial custody is not warranted. Adding to his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has already tendered his resignation to his higher authority in writing, as such, the possibility of the petitioner/accused once again going back to the same place of work is totally ruled out. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader, in his statement of objections as well argument, submitted that the alleged incident is heinous in nature, that too, against children, as such, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader, in his statement of objections as well argument, submitted that the alleged incident is heinous in nature, that too, against children, as such, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, by filing a memo today along with a copy of the letter from the Assistant Director (Grade-I), Social Welfare Department, Indi dated 05.02.2020, he submits that the petitioner/accused has already been kept under suspension and even if the suspension is revoked and he is permitted to report for the duty, he would be given a different posting and would not be allowed to continue in his capacity as a warden of the hostel. 5. It can be inferred at this stage that though there is allegation of sexual harassment of the small children by the petitioner as a warden of the hostel, still as on date he is continued to be under suspension. Further, as submitted by learned High Court Government Pleader through his memo filed today, even if the said suspension is revoked pending enquiry against him, still he would not be posted in the same place and post where he was working as on the date of the alleged commission of crime. In such a situation, I am of the view that the students interest could be protected by the State by not allowing the present petitioner to continue to work as a warden in the said hostel. 6. Considering the fact that the investigation has already been completed and charge sheet has been filed, I find that in the light of the nature of the offences alleged, the continuation of the accused in the judicial custody in the circumstances of the case is not warranted. However, the apprehension of the prosecution that the accused may flee from justice can be checked by imposing reasonable conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner be enlarged on bail in FIR (Crime) No.98/2019 of Horti Police Station [Special Case (POCSO) No.35/2019 pending on the file of the II Addl. However, the apprehension of the prosecution that the accused may flee from justice can be checked by imposing reasonable conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner be enlarged on bail in FIR (Crime) No.98/2019 of Horti Police Station [Special Case (POCSO) No.35/2019 pending on the file of the II Addl. Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Vijayapura], for the offences punishable under sections 323, 506 of Indian Penal Code and section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, subject to the following conditions that: (i) The accused/petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two local solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the enlarging Court. (ii) The accused/petitioner to give in writing about the change in his address, if any, to the trial Court as and when such change occurs and obtain acknowledgement in that regard. (iii) The accused/petitioner shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing. (iv) The accused/petitioner shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses and documents in any manner.