PRAVEEN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail in connection with Crime No.135/2019 of Aurad police station, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 370(4) , 354(D) , 366 , 376(2)(n) , 376(3) of IPC and Sections 4 , 6 , 12 and 18 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short the 'POCSO' Act), 2012.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, the father of the victim had lodged First Information Statement (for short 'FIS') before the respondent/police that his minor daughter aged about 14 years old had discontinued her education about six months back and she was going to Aurad town to learn tailoring and at that moment the accused used to follow her and proposing her and inducing her to love him and accordingly accused had abducted her and she did not return to the house as usual on 18.11.2019 and after making enquiry to the cousins she was not traced out and the complainant came to know that the accused had abducted her for the purpose to satisfy his sexual lust or some other reason. Therefore, with these allegations, the respondent/police have registered crime initially for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A) of IPC and Sections 12 and 18 of the POCSO Act. After the investigation, the Investigating Officer had filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 370(4) , 354(D) , 366 , 376(2)(n) , 376(3) of IPC and Sections 4, 6, 12 and 18 of POCSO Act.

(3.) The learned counsel for the accused/petitioner vehemently argued that now the victim is major of more than 18 years old and produced the documentary evidence that is the certified copy of the date of birth certificate of the victim and submitted that her date of birth is 25.11.2001 and as on the date of lodging FIS the victim has already crossed 18 years. Therefore, there are no offences to attract as alleged in the charge sheet.