YALLAPPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) The complainant one Shri D. Nagarajappa has alleged that on 20.11.2015 at about 4.30 p.m. the Rural Police Station, Hiriyur registered a case for the offence punishable under Section 366(A) of IPC and after completion of investigation had also registered a case for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 363 and 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act 2012 against the petitioner. The back ground is as follows: It transpires that, complainant's daughter Priyanka aged about 17 years 4 months studying in II year P.U.C had developed friendship with the petitioner and it had grown intimate. When the complainant learnt of this relationship he tried to advise his daughter to discontinue her friendship with the petitioner. Despite which they had grown more intimate and on 09.11.2015 it transpires that when the complainant returned from work he found that his daughter was not at home and after a futile search till 20.11.2015 when he met one Jagadisha at Hiriyur bus stand, he discussed about his missing daughter. It transpires that Jagadisha had informed him that he had seen his daughter Priyanka talking to the petitioner about 10 days ago. And on receiving such information, the complainant is said to have filed a complaint against the petitioner suspecting that the petitioner might have kidnapped his daughter. Thereafter, the police having investigated the matter arrested the petitioner and had taken him into custody on 20.11.2015. It is in this background that a case has been registered against the petitioner. It further transpires that it is the case of the petitioner that the complainant's daughter and the petitioner were seriously in love with each other and notwithstanding her minority, she had willfully accompanied the petitioner and even got married at a temple. Notwithstanding this fact, the Court below has rejected the bail petition of the petitioner on the ground that admittedly the victim being a minor and even if she had consented to accompany the petitioner, it would not be lawful as she was a minor and any sexual contact with her would amount to rape even though it may have been with her consent and accordingly, has rejected the bail petition.

(3.) In the given circumstances of the case the question as to the consequences of such conduct on the part of the petitioner given the fact that the alleged victim is a child in the eye of law and the relationship between the petitioner and complainant's daughter would amount to a crime, is a matter to be examined at the trial. Therefore, the petitioner being in custody indefinitely would result in a miscarriage of justice. Given the circumstance, that there is no impairment nor any harm caused to the girl on account of the relationship, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail. 3. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions: