RAJESHWARI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records.

(2.) Petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1/2020 of Madikeri Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 370(4), 370(6), 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 80 and 81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and also Section 21(1) of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that on 22.08.2019, a minor girl came to Ashwini Hospital at Madikeri as she was pregnant and the Petitioners have conducted the delivery and she gave birth to a male child. Accused No.3 - Sm. Saleena was working as a Group - D employee in the said hospital. As the said mother of the child was not willing to take child, then the Doctor gave the said child to Smt. Saleena and in-turn, she gave the child to accused Nos.4 and 5 i.e., her son Robin and Smt. Sarala Meri. On 27.12.2019, the District Child Welfare Officer with the police went to the house of Smt. Saleena and found that the said child was with them and that Saleema told that the Doctors have given the said child to her. But it is not there in the complaint that they have paid any amount to the Doctors. If so or if at all any amount is paid to Doctors, the said Robin and Sarala Meri have approached this Court in Crl.P. No.828/2020 vide order dated 11.02.2020, this Court has released them on bail on conditions. This Court has in-detail considered whether the offences under the Provisions of Section 21(1) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC are attracted or not? and it expresses its doubt with regard to the attraction of these provisions. However the Court observed that there is a prima facie case to attract Sections 80 and 81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 and Section 21(1) of the POCSO Act, 2012. The above said offences are punishable with maximum punishment upto three years. Therefore, the Court observed that the above said accused persons in the said petition were entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Similar allegations are there against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 but actually, they stand on better footing when compared to the other accused persons. Except stating that they performed their duties in delivering the child to the victim and the other allegations with reference to payment of Rs.1,50,000/-, by him to whom is also not explained in the complaint. Therefore, in my opinion, petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are also entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to the similar conditions imposed by this Court on accused Nos.4 and 5 in Crl.P. No.828/2020. Hence, the following: