(BY SRI. I.S. PRAMOD CHANDRA., ADVOCATE) v. (BY SRI.RAHUL RAI, HCGP)

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, W/O. MR. MOHD. IMTIYAZ, RESIDENT OF 60 FEET ROAD, GOWRI KALUVE, CHIKKAMAGALURU PIN--577101. THE VICTIM OF OFFENCE IS A MINOR AND THE MOTHER OF THE VICTIM, BEING HER NATURAL GUARDIAN IS PREFERRING THE PETITIION (BY SRI. I.S. PRAMOD CHANDRA., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

#1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN, THROUGH THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

#2. MR. MOHAMMAD AFSAL S/O. MR.ABDUL HABIB, AGED 19 YEARS, DIPLOMA STUDENT, M.I.F.SC COLLEGE UDUPI, NATIVE OF SHADULIL NAGARA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:27447 CRL.P No. 4368 of 2024 2ND CROSS, CHIKKAMAGALURU PIN-577101 NOW AT NEAR OLD BUS STAND, P.G UDUPI(D) (BY SRI.RAHUL RAI, HCGP) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.439(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.02.2024 PASSED BY THE ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC-1 CHIKKAMAGALURU AND CANCEL THE BAIL GRANTED TO ACCUSED / RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN IN CR.NO.16/2024 REGISTERED WITH WOMEN P.S. CHIKKAMAGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376(2)(n) AND 506 OF IPC AND SEC.6 OF POCSO ACT AND COMMIT THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT NO.2 TO JUDICIAL CUSTODY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner being the mother of the victim seeks cancellation of bail granted in favour of the respondent No.2 in Cr.No.16/2024 pending on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Sessions Judge-I, Chikkamagalur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:27447 CRL.P No. 4368 of 2024 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Raina.

#2. Heard Sri I.S.Pramod Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record.

#3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed i.e., cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.2 under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.?” My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following: R E A S O N S

#4. Respondent No.2 sole accused Cr.No.16/2024. The victim lodged the First Information alleging commission of offence as stated above. It is stated that the victim was aged about 16 years 09 months at the time of incident. The material on record discloses that the victim - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:27447 CRL.P No. 4368 of 2024 was in contact with respondent No.2 over phone and they were chatting continuously. It is stated that respondent No.2 used to visit the house of the victim during night hours and said to have committed sexual assault. Ofcourse there are prima facie material to constitute the offence alleged against respondent No.2. But the fact remains that, the victim who is aged about 17 years according to the petitioner, switched off C.C.T.V. camera and opened the door of her house enable respondent No.2 to come inside and commit the offence. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.2 is aged 19 years. Considering the age of the victim as well as respondent No.2, I am of the opinion that learned Sessions Judge has rightly enlarged respondent No.2 on bail. Similar observations were made by the learned Sessions Judge while enlarging respondent No.2 on bail.

#5. Taking into consideration, the age of respondent No.2, there is no illegality or perversity found in the order under challenge. Serious grounds are to be made out for cancellation of bail which is already granted on merits. No such grounds are made out to cancel the bail and therefore, I am of the opinion that the petition is liable to be dismissed. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:27447 CRL.P No. 4368 of 2024

#6. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12