Karnataka High Court
Basangoud S/O Ramanagouda Alias ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 February, 2025
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3015
CRL.P No. 100006 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100006 OF 2025
[439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS)]
BETWEEN:
BASANGOUD RAMANAGOUDA ALIAS RAMANAGOUDRA,
S/O. IRANAGOUDA, AGE: 21 YEARS,
OCC. COOLIE, R/O. AKKUR,
TQ/DIST. HAVERI-581110,
(WRONGLY SHOWN AS TQ. AND DIST. SHIVAMOGGA.
IN SPL.SC.NO. 91/2024)
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIJAYENDRA BHIMAKKANAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HAVERI WOMEN POLICE STATION,
DIST. HAVERI,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed
by
BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011.
MALLIKARJUN
MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA
RUDRAYYA KALMATH
KALMATH
Date:
2025.02.14
17:25:54 +0530
2. SMT. NIRMALA W/O. SHARANAYYA SALIMATH,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. AKKUR, TQ /DIST. HAVERI-581110.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C.
(U/SEC. 483 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON REGULAR BAIL U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C. IN
SPL.S.C.NO. 91/2024 (HAVERI WOMEN P.S. CRIME NO. 67/2024)
PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
FTSC-I, HAVERI (SPL. COURT UNDER POCSO ACT) REGISTERED FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 376(AB), 376(2)(n), 450, 354B
AND 506 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 4, 6 AND 8 OF POCSO ACT, 2012.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3015
CRL.P No. 100006 of 2025
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) This petition is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail in Spl.S.C.no.91/2024 (Crime no.67/2024) by Haveri Women Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376 (AB), 376 (2) (n), 354 (B), 450 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'POCSO') by sole accused (petitioner).
2. Sri Vijayendra Bhimakkanavar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted case of prosecution was that Smt.Nirmala Salimath filed complaint on 31.08.2024 stating that she was residing with victim, husband and son at Akkur village. Victim being her daughter was studying in 7th standard and that on 29.08.2024, victim informed her that she had missed her menstrual periods. When she was taken to hospital for check- up, she was found to be pregnant. Even at District Hospital, Haveri, pregnancy was confirmed. On enquiry, she informed -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3015 CRL.P No. 100006 of 2025 that petitioner who was employed by complainant earlier had developed intimacy with victim. On 27.08.2023, Sunday at 10:45 p.m. when victim was sleeping in hall of her house, petitioner unlocked door, entered house and sat near victim which alarmed her. When she enquired, he immediately hugged her and thereafter, raped her against her wish. When she was crying after incident, he threatened to kill her parents in case she revealed it to them. Thereafter, petitioner had sexual intercourse with her several times. Complainant further stated that petitioner who was employed for about 3 years had taken advantage of same and by inducing victim to believe that he was in love with her, committed rape. Based on complaint, Crime no.67/2024 was registered by Haveri Women Police Station.
3. It was submitted, petitioner was arrested on same day. It was submitted, in complaint, complainant had stated about petitioner and victim being in love with each other. It was submitted, even in statement of victim recorded under Section 180 of BNSS on 31.08.2024 she had acknowledged about love affair. But, in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS on 21.09.2024 she had changed her version. It -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3015 CRL.P No. 100006 of 2025 was submitted, though age of victim was just above 12 years, she was capable of knowing consequences of her actions and had indulged in sexual intercourse with petitioner for over a period of one year without complaining about it to anyone else. These would indicate tacit approval in fact even if same could not be considered as consent. It was submitted, there was delay of more than one year in filing complaint. Apart from above, it was submitted petitioner himself was aged about 20 years at time of incident. Thus incident occurred during age of their innocence. Even fact that there were no criminal antecedents of petitioner and fact that charge-sheet was filed after completion of investigation while petitioner was in custody and he would not be required for custodial interrogation was also a ground for grant of bail. On above grounds, sought for allowing petition.
4. On other hand, Smt.Girija S.Hiremath, learned HCGP sought to oppose petition by referring statement of objections filed. It was submitted, petitioner was alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 376 (AB), 376 (2) (n), 354 (B), 450 and 506 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of POCSO which carry sentence of more than 10 years upto -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3015 CRL.P No. 100006 of 2025 imprisonment for life. Fact that offence was committed on a very young girl of just above 12 years of age indicated gravity of offence. It was submitted, prosecution had completed investigation and filed charge-sheet on 26.10.2024 after recording statements of 31 witnesses. It was submitted, Medical Examination Report indicated rupture of hymen and since victim had become pregnant, same was medically terminated and fetus was sent for DNA profiling report of which confirmed petitioner as biological father. Therefore, there was sufficient material to establish charges. On said grounds sought for rejection of bail.
5. Sri Naveen Chatrad, learned counsel for respondent no.2-Complainant sought to reinforce submission of learned HCGP by stating that merely on ground of petitioner being with love with victim would not be a ground of granting bail. He relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of X (Minor) v. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2022 (3) KCCR SN 332 (SC) and sought for rejection of bail.
6. Heard learned counsel and perused available material.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3015 CRL.P No. 100006 of 2025
7. From above, point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether petitioner is entitled for regular bail with conditions?"
8. From above, it is seen that petitioner-sole accused is seeking for regular bail in Spl.S.C.no.91/2024 (Crime no.67/2024) registered by Haveri Women Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376 (AB), 376 (2) (n), 354 (B), 450 and 506 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of POCSO punishable with imprisonment from 10 years upto life. Fact that offence was committed on a girl just over 12 years of age would indicate that allegations are grave and heinous. Indeed complaint and statement recorded under Section 180 of BNSS would contain averments about petitioner being in love with victim. But in statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS there is no reference to love affair.
9. Insofar as applications for bail involving offences under POCSO Act, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Dharmendra Singh v. The State (Govt of NCT Delhi) reported in 2020 SCC Online Delhi 1267, identified several factors to be taken into account as follows:
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3015 CRL.P No. 100006 of 2025 "77. Though the heinousness of the offence alleged will beget the length of sentence after trial, in order to give due weightage to the intent and purpose of the Legislature in engrafting section 29 in this special statute to protect children from sexual offences, while deciding a bail plea at the post-
charge stage, in addition to the nature and quality of the evidence before it, the court would also factor in certain real life considerations, illustrated below, which would tilt the balance against or in favour of the accused:
a. the age of the minor victim : the younger the victim, the more heinous the offence alleged; b. the age of the accused : the older the accused, the more heinous the offence alleged; c. the comparative age of the victim and the accused : the more their age difference, the more the element of perversion in the offence alleged;
d. the familial relationship, if any, between the victim and the accused : the closer such relationship, the more odious the offence alleged;
e. whether the offence alleged involved threat, intimidation, violence and/or brutality; f. the conduct of the accused after the offence, as alleged;
g. whether the offence was repeated against the victim; or whether the accused is a repeat offender under the POCSO Act or otherwise; h. whether the victim and the accused are so placed that the accused would have easy access to the victim, if enlarged on bail : the more the access, greater the reservation in granting bail;
i. the comparative social standing of the victim and the accused : this would give insight into -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3015 CRL.P No. 100006 of 2025 whether the accused is in a dominating position to subvert the trial; j. whether the offence alleged was perpetrated when the victim and the accused were at an age of innocence : an innocent, though unholy, physical alliance may be looked at with less severity;
k. whether it appears there was tacit approval-in-
fact, though not consent-in-law, for the offence alleged;
l. whether the offence alleged was committed alone or along with other persons, acting in a group or otherwise;
m. other similar real-life considerations."
(emphasis in original)
10. Applying same herein, as per her Birth Certificate age of victim would be 12 years 4 months and 23 days from her date of birth i.e. 08.04.2012. As first incident occurred on 27.08.2023, petitioner would be 20 years. Tender age of victim would suggest affair between petitioner and victim as perverse. Though there is no previous familial relationship between victim and accused, as per complainant, petitioner was employed in household for 3 years earlier to incident. Thus, petitioner being in position of trust would be aggravating factor. As per complaint averments as well as statement recorded under Section 180 and 183 of BNSS, victim has stated that petitioner -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3015 CRL.P No. 100006 of 2025 had threatened her with killing her parents. Therefore, offences alleged involved threat or intimidation though not of physical force or violence. As stated by prosecution, DNA profiling report also appears to implicate petitioner.
11. In view of above and taking note of decisions relied upon by learned counsel for respondent no.2 and considering tender age of victim, and societal impact, point for consideration is answered in negative. Consequently, following:
ORDER Criminal petition is dismissed.
SD/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE RH,CLK CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 5