YALLAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the sole accused under Sec. 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ' Cr.P.C .', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.46/2022 of Alawandi Police Station, Koppal district, registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 363 , 343 and 376(2)(l) of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ' IPC ', for brevity) and Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the 'POCSO Act', for brevity).

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that, the father of the victim girl has filed the complaint stating that, his daughter-victim girl, aged 16 years 8 months, was studying in PUC I year and she used to go to college every day at 7:00am and used to return at 11:00am. It is further stated that on 17/3/2022, daughter of the complainant had gone to college at about 7:00am and did not return till 12:00 noon. The complainant searched the victim girl at bus stand, friends' house and his relatives house and he could not trace her. Therefore, he lodged a complaint which came to be registered in Crime No.46/2022 of Alawandi Police Station for an offence punishable under Sec. 363 of IPC against unknown persons. The Police after investigation secured the victim and the accused on 28/3/2022. The victim girl stated before the police that the petitioner took her from Halavagalu road to Mundaragi on motorcycle and from there, they went to Hubballi and Sirsi where they married in the Marikamba temple and the petitioner thereafter had sexual intercourse with her. The Petitioner came to be arrested on 29/3/2022 and he is in judicial custody. The Police after investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Ss. 363 , 343 , 376(2)(l) of IPC and Sec. 6 of POCSO Act. The petitioner filed bail application in Spl.SC POCSO No.22/2022 and the same came to be rejected by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Koppal, by order dtd. 4/6/2022 Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail.

(3.) Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1- State. Respondent No.2-complainant, in spite of service of notice, has not chosen to appear before the Court and remained unrepresented.