Karnataka High Court Grants Bail to Accused in POCSO and IPC Case — Consensual Relationship with Minor Above 16 Years. Court held that the victim was above 16 years and the relationship was consensual, thus bail was granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, M. Subramanya Chari, filed a criminal petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking bail in Crime No.122/2019 registered at Abbinahole Police Station, Chitradurga, for offences punishable under Sections 363, 354-D, 354-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 12 and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The case arose from a complaint filed by one Yogananda on 07.11.2019, stating that his minor daughter Rakshita, aged about 16 years and studying in IX standard, had left home on 05.11.2019 at 9.00 a.m. and did not return. The complainant alleged that the accused had kidnapped and sexually assaulted the victim. The accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner's counsel argued that the victim was aged about 16 years and had voluntarily accompanied the accused, and that the relationship was consensual. The State opposed the bail application, citing the seriousness of the offences. The court, after hearing both sides, noted that the victim's age was around 16 years and that the allegations did not prima facie establish kidnapping or sexual assault. The court observed that the victim had willingly gone with the accused and that there was no evidence of force or coercion. Accordingly, the court allowed the bail petition and directed the accused to be released on bail subject to conditions, including furnishing a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, and not tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Bail - Section 439 Cr.P.C. - Grant of Bail - Accused sought bail for offences under Sections 363, 354-D, 354-A IPC and Sections 12, 18 POCSO Act - Court considered that the victim was aged about 16 years and the relationship appeared consensual - Held that the accused is entitled to bail as no prima facie case of kidnapping or sexual assault was made out (Paras 1-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the accused is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving offences under IPC and POCSO Act, considering the victim's age and consensual nature of the relationship.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the bail petition and directed the accused to be released on bail subject to conditions: furnishing a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, and not tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.

Law Points

  • Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
  • Age determination in POCSO cases
  • Consensual relationship with minor above 16 years
  • Prima facie case assessment
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (KAR) (07) 200

Criminal Petition No.2229/2020

2020-07-07

N.K. Sudhindrarao

Sri Ravindra B. Deshpande (for petitioner), Sri K. Nageshwarappa (HCGP for respondent-State)

M. Subramanya Chari

The State of Karnataka and Shri G. Yogananda

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner (accused) sought bail in Crime No.122/2019 for offences under IPC and POCSO Act.

Filing Reason

The accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in connection with the alleged kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor girl.

Issues

Whether the accused is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. considering the nature of offences and the victim's age. Whether the relationship between the accused and the victim was consensual.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner's counsel argued that the victim was aged about 16 years and had voluntarily accompanied the accused, and that the relationship was consensual. State opposed bail citing the seriousness of the offences under IPC and POCSO Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the victim was aged about 16 years and the relationship appeared consensual, and therefore no prima facie case of kidnapping or sexual assault was made out, entitling the accused to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Judgment Excerpts

This petition is filed by the accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.122/2019 of Abbinahole Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 354-D, 354-A of IPC and Sections 12 and 18 of POCSO Act. The substance of the case is that, on 07.11.2019 a complaint came to be filed by one Yogananda stating that he is a resident of Bidarekere Village of Hiriyur Taluk; he has three children; Second one is Rakshita, studying in IX Standard in Government High-School at Ambalagere Village; and she used to attend classes by traveling in bus. On 05.11.2019 at about 9.00 a.m., she left house and did not return even after 5.00 p.m.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed on 07.11.2019, leading to registration of Crime No.122/2019. The accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. He then filed Criminal Petition No.2229/2020 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail. The petition was heard on 07.07.2020 and allowed.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 439
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 363, 354-D, 354-A
  • Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): 12, 18
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Karnataka High Court Grants Bail to Accused in POCSO and IPC Case — Consensual Relationship with Minor Above 16 Years. Court held that the victim was above 16 years and the relationship was consensual, thus bail was granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Goa Allows Section 9 Petition for Interim Relief in Iron Ore Sale Dispute. Petitioner granted injunction restraining respondent from drawing on bank guarantees and ordered to maintain status quo on letter of credit.