IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO. 212/2019 BETWEEN STATE BY KUVEMPUNAGAR POLICE STATION, MYSURU CITY REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 (BY SRI. HONNAPPA, HCGP) AND RAVI @ RAVI SAGAR G S/O R. GANESH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/O # 105, 7TH CROSS H BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNANAGAR MYSURU – 570 001 (VIDE ORDER DATED 30/10/2019 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS DISPENSED WITH) ... PETITIONER … RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.07.2018 PASSED IN CR.NO.98/2018 BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSURU AND CANCEL THE SAID ORDER OF BAIL GRANTED IN CR.NO.44/2018 OF LAKSHMIPURAM POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 383, 417, 420 AND 376 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF POCSO ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER with.
Notice to be issued to the respondent is dispensed 2. Heard the learned HCGP for the petitioner-
State. Perused the records.
3. The Petitioner/State has preferred this petition for cancellation of bail granted by the VI-Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru, vide order dated 13.07.2018 granted in Crime No. 98/2018, for the offence punishable under Sections 383, 417, 420 & 376 of IPC and also under Sections 3 & 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
4. The brief facts of the case are that, the victim girl, who was aged about 17 years has stated in her 164 statement before the jurisdictional Court that, herself and the petitioner were often meeting in family functions and in fact both of them started loving each other. In that context, on 18.12.2017, the petitioner took her to his Maternal Aunt’s house at Kuvempu Nagara, M’ Block and they had physical contact with each other. Thereafter also they continued their physical relationship with each other and ultimately, on 09.06.2018, she complained stomach pain and after check-up, the doctor told that she is conceived. Thereafter, the victim girl disclosed the facts about her relationship with the petitioner. When the victim girl informed the petitioner that she is conceived, then the petitioner administered some tablet to her and on consuming the same, the victim girl sustained heavy bleeding. Thereafter, it appears a complaint came to be lodged against the petitioner.
5. On the basis of the statement of the victim girl and also considering that the victim girl was at the verge of 18 years as on the date of incident, the learned Sessions Judge holding that the prosecution has to prove the age of the victim girl, as to whether she is below the age of 18 years, beyond reasonable doubt, during the course of the trial, granted bail to the petitioner. It appears, considering the age of the victim girl and the petitioner, and their mutual attitude, the trial Court exercising its discretion, granted bail to the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.PC. Therefore, in my opinion, the bail order granted by the learned Sessions Judge does not call for interference. Hence, the petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*