Karnataka High Court Grants Bail to Accused in POCSO and Rape Case — Victim's Age Discrepancy and Consensual Relationship Considered. Court held that the victim was above 16 years and the relationship was consensual, warranting bail under Section 439 CrPC.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 98
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Mr. Rahul @ Nayaz Pasha, filed a criminal petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail in Crime No.126/2020 registered by Tiptur Town Police for offences punishable under Sections 363, 342, 114, 506, 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 4, 6, 17, 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Sections 9 and 10 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929. The case arose from a complaint filed by the victim's mother, Shahinabanu, on 05.10.2020, alleging that her daughter, aged about 17 years, was kidnapped and subjected to sexual assault by the petitioner and others. The court heard arguments from the petitioner's counsel, Sri M.S. Venugopal, and the High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1, Sri K. Nageshwarappa. The court observed that the victim, in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, stated that she voluntarily went with the petitioner and married him, and that the relationship was consensual. The court noted that the victim was aged about 17 years, above the age of 16 years, and that the medical report did not indicate any injuries. The court held that there was no prima facie case of forceful kidnapping or rape, and that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioner on certain conditions.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Bail - Section 439 CrPC - Regular Bail - Petitioner-accused sought bail for offences under Sections 363, 342, 114, 506, 376 read with 34 IPC, Sections 4, 6, 17, 18 of POCSO Act, and Sections 9, 10 of Child Marriage Restraint Act - Court granted bail noting that the victim was aged about 17 years, above 16 years, and the relationship appeared consensual - Held that the accused is entitled to bail as there was no prima facie case of forceful kidnapping or rape (Paras 1-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner-accused is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 CrPC for offences under IPC, POCSO Act, and Child Marriage Act, considering the victim's age and consensual nature of the relationship.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The petitioner-accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.126/2020 of Tiptur Town Police Station, subject to executing a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum, and on conditions including appearing before the court regularly and not tampering with evidence.

Law Points

  • Bail under Section 439 CrPC
  • Age determination in POCSO cases
  • Consensual relationship with minor above 16 years
  • Prima facie case for bail
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (KAR) (06) 26

Criminal Petition No.1173 of 2021

2021-06-16

K. Natarajan

M.S. Venugopal for petitioner, K. Nageshwarappa for respondent No.1, Sharan N. Majage for respondent No.2

Mr. Rahul @ Nayaz Pasha

State of Karnataka and Mrs. Shahinabanu

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal bail petition under Section 439 CrPC

Remedy Sought

Regular bail for the petitioner-accused in Crime No.126/2020

Filing Reason

Allegations of kidnapping, wrongful confinement, rape, and offences under POCSO Act and Child Marriage Act

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC given the nature of offences and the victim's age. Whether the relationship between the petitioner and the victim was consensual.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner's counsel argued that the victim voluntarily accompanied the petitioner and married him, and that the victim was above 16 years of age. State opposed bail citing the seriousness of the offences under POCSO Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The victim was aged about 17 years, above 16 years, and the relationship was consensual as per her statement under Section 164 CrPC. Therefore, no prima facie case of forceful kidnapping or rape was made out, and the accused is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC.

Judgment Excerpts

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of one Shahinabanu, the mother of the victim, filed a complaint to the Police on 05.10.2020 alleging that her daughter, the victim girl, aged about 17 years, was kidnapped and subjected to sexual assault. The victim in her statement under Section 164 CrPC stated that she voluntarily went with the petitioner and married him, and that the relationship was consensual. The court held that there was no prima facie case of forceful kidnapping or rape, and that the petitioner was entitled to bail.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.1173 of 2021 under Section 439 CrPC before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The petition was heard and reserved for orders on 11.06.2021, and pronounced on 16.06.2021.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 439
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 363, 342, 114, 506, 376, 34
  • Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: 4, 6, 17, 18
  • Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929: 9, 10
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Karnataka High Court Grants Bail to Accused in POCSO and Rape Case — Victim's Age Discrepancy and Consensual Relationship Considered. Court held that the victim was above 16 years and the relationship was consensual, warranting bail under Section 4...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Partition Suit, Sets Aside Appellate Decree for Non-Compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. Failure to Frame Points for Determination and Provide Reasons Renders Judgment Invalid.