Karnataka High Court
Mr Basavaraj Pinni S/O. Maruti Pinni vs State Of Karnataka on 30 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8216
CRL.P No. 102073 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102073 OF 2025
(439 OF Cr.PC/483 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
MR. BASAVARAJ PINNI S/O. MARUTI PINNI,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. IRAKALGADA, TQ & DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KOPPAL WOMEN POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PULIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001.
2. SRI BASAARAJ KUDARIMOTI S/O. SHIVAPPA,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed
R/O. IRAKALGADA-583231, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL.
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR ...RESPONDENTS
Location: High
Court of (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
Karnataka, SHRI VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADV. FOR R2)
Dharwad Bench
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C.
(U/S.483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER
IN CRIME NO.74/2024 REGISTERED IN KOPPAL WOMEN POLICE
STATION, PENDING BEFORE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, FTSC-1, KOPPAL IN SPC.SC. POCSO NO.4/2025 REGISTERED
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S.75(2), 65(1), 351(2) OF BNS
AND SECTION 4(2) OF POCSO ACT 2012, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8216
CRL.P No. 102073 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Sri. Neelendra D. Gunde, the learned counsel for petitioner, Smt. Kirtilata Patil, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - State and Sri. Vidyashankar G. Dalwai, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking to grant bail in connection with Crime No.74/2024 registered in Koppal Women Police Station, pending before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Koppal in SPC. SC. POCSO No.4/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 75(2), 65(1), 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4(2) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
On 23.12.2024, the victim - daughter of the first informant went missing. The first informant searched her here and there. Later he came to know that the petitioner -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8216 CRL.P No. 102073 of 2025 HC-KAR had kidnapped the victim and took her to various places and had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her. Hence, he lodged a compliant, which led to the registration of an FIR and initiation of investigation. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested and was remanded to judicial custody.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent, has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is contended that there is no external genital organ injury and hymen was not ruptured. As per the FSL report, no seminal stains were detected. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for allowing the petition.
5. Learned HCGP contended that there is prima facie case against the accused person. The medical report clearly indicates that hymen is ruptured. The victim is minor aged about 15 years 2 months. It is contended that the offence committed by the petitioner accused is heinous in nature. If he is released on bail, he may tamper prosecution witnesses -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8216 CRL.P No. 102073 of 2025 HC-KAR and hamper the trial. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Records reveal that the victim was minor at the time of commission of offence. As per statement of victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., it appears that the accused had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim. On perusal of the medical records, it reveals that hymen of victim is ruptured. Admittedly, victim is minor and the question of consent would not arise in an allegation of aggravated sexual assault under POCSO Act.
7. Having regard to the materials placed on record, the prosecution has placed prima facie materials against the petitioner as to his involvement in the alleged offences which attracts the provisions of POCSO Act. If petitioner is released on bail, he may threaten the prosecution witnesses and may hamper the trial. Therefore, considering all these aspects of the matter, it is not a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8216 CRL.P No. 102073 of 2025 HC-KAR Note: The observations made herein are only for disposal of the petition.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE Rsh /ct-an List no.: 1 sl no.: 28