AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2/victim.
The petitioner seeks regular bail in Spl. S.C. No.66/2025 arising out of Crime No.55/2025 registered before the Haveri Women Police Station.
The offences alleged are under Sections 64(2)(m) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20231 and Sections 4(2), 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20122.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the consensual relationship between the petitioner and the victim is converted into a criminal case on the ground that the victim was minor at the time of alleged incident. It is the submission that the complaint is filed by the victim's mother on the allegation that the petitioner has raped the victim.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the charge sheet is filed after investigation and the petitioner is in custody since 25.05.2025. It is the further submission that, before Court the victim's evidence was recorded and she was examined as PW-1 and in her statement before the Court and examination-in-chief itself victim has stated that she was in love with the petitioner and had sexual relationship with consent.
The victim has referred to two sexual acts with the petitioner on two different dates. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the said statement, would contend that only because the victim was aged 16 years and 4 months, the case is filed for the offences under the POCSO Act. Assuming that the said acts constitute offences under the POCSO Act, that by itself cannot be a ground to deny bail. It is submitted that, the statement of the victim has to be considered in the context of the bail petition, wherein the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that petitioner’s further custodial interrogation is not required.
It is the further submission that there are no antecedents against the petitioner and petitioner was aged 22 at the time of alleged incident and learned counsel would further submit that 6 witnesses have been examined, the trial has already commenced and the petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by the Court in the event of release on bail.
Learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the petition on the ground that the alleged consent of the victim not a consent in the eye of law. The DNA report shows the involvement of the petitioner the alleged act, as the victim conceived and she aborted later.
It is the further submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner has threatened the victim's father in the Court premises when victim’s father had gone to the Court to give evidence and in case the petitioner is released on bail, there is a serious threat to the fair trial.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of reply, would submit that no such complaint is filed in writing before the Court and that the said allegation cannot be a ground for rejecting the petitioner's bail.
The Court has considered the contentions raised and perused the records.
In her statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, before the police, the victim has stated that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her forcibly and used to have sexual intercourse with her often. However, in her statement before the Court and in her examination-in-chief, the victim has stated that she was in love with the petitioner and that they had sexual intercourse voluntarily.
It is indeed true that the consent of a minor is not valid consent in the eye of law. However, the circumstances stated by the victim can be one of the relevant factors while considering the petition seeking bail.
As already noticed, the charge sheet has been filed. The evidence has commenced and there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner.
Though the respondent would urge that there is a serious threat to the witnesses, the Court is of the view that the same can be adequately addressed by imposing suitable conditions.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
Petition is allowed subject to the following conditions:
Petitioner shall be enlarged on bail in Spl.S.C. No.66/2025 arising out of Crime No.55/2025 on executing a personal bond for a sum of ₹2,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Petitioner shall punctually attend the Trial Court on each and every posting unless expressly exempted.
Petitioner shall cooperate with the Trial
Petitioner shall not threaten, induce, or promise anyone acquainted with the facts, nor tamper with evidence or witnesses.
Petitioner shall furnish current address, active mobile number, to the jurisdictional police and intimate any changes within 48 hours.
Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the police station without prior information and intimation to the jurisdictional police.
The petitioner shall never ever attempt to contact the complainant, his family members or any of the witnesses in any mode till the disposal of the proceeding. In case, if it is found that the petitioner is making an attempt to contact any of the members of the complainant family and the victim and any of the witnesses the prosecution is entitled to move an application for cancellation of bail and a prima facie material is placed to support that contention, the trial Court shall immediately cancel the bail and issue non-bailable warrant against the petitioner.
Petitioner shall not commit any offences.
The observations made in this order are not reflections on the merits of the matter.
The observations are only confined on the merits of the bail petition.