BHAMU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-sole accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.168/2021 of Kembhavi Police Station, pending in Special Case (POCSO) No.4/2022 on the file of Sessions Court/Special Court, Yadgiri, registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 376(2)(n), 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), and Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on the basis of the first information lodged by the victim Vidyashree.

(2.) Heard Sri R.S.Lagali, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri Manjunath Mallayya Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused. He is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. The victim herself lodged first information against the accused stating that the accused has committed sexual assault 5-6 times repeatedly, against her will. But the documents produced along with the petition disclose that the CDPO of Shorapur, has lodged complaint against the parents of the victim and three others for the offences punishable under Ss. 10 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. It is specifically stated therein that accused No.3 is the husband of the victim and her marriage has taken place on 26/4/2021. The said fact was deliberately suppressed by the victim while filing the present complaint. Even according to the informant, incident had taken place on 13/8/2021, but the first information came to be lodged on 17/11/2011. There is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. Charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer discloses that on 16/8/2021 parents of the victim have requested the petitioner to marry the victim. But, the petitioner flatly refused to marry her. It is only three months thereafter, the present complaint came to be filed. As per the medical records, the victim was pregnant and fetus was aborted and nothing in this regard, was stated in the first information. Therefore, case made out by the prosecution is suspicious. Petitioner was apprehended on 24/11/2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. He is not required for further investigation as charge sheet is filed. Since the investigation is already completed, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioner is not having criminal antecedents. He is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.