LAWS(KAR)-2019-6-1

ANIL GROVER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On June 03, 2019
Anil Grover Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the petition seeking to enlarge him on bail with respect to his detention in connection with Spl.C.C.No.24/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO Act' for brevity).

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that the first informant who is the father of the child has lodged a complaint stating that his child plays in the apartment lobby usually between 5.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. It is further stated that his daughter was reluctant to play and upon further enquiry, they have come across the incidents leading to child feeling uncomfortable due to inappropriate behavior of the petitioner. It is stated further that on 25.11.2018, the child did not want to go down to play in the common area, as the presence of the petitioner was bothering her. It is also stated that on subsequent enquiry, the child has told her parents that the petitioner was making her very uncomfortable as he was chasing and touching her inappropriately. There are other such allegations that are made out in the complaint. After complaint has been registered, investigation has been completed, but the trial is yet to commence.

(3.) Sri C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Mahesh.S for the petitioner points out that there is serious infirmity in the investigation process. It is contended that admittedly, witnesses have not been examined in presence of the parents as required under Section 26 of the POCSO Act and that there was no medical examination as there has been refusal to subject the child to medical examination and hence, there was violation of the requirement of Section 27 of the POCSO Act and it is further stated that the mandate of the law for recording of the evidence in light of the Section 35 of the POCSO has also not been adhered to. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no presumption of having committed the offence as the offences are under Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act and the presumption is with respect to other offences as stipulated under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.