Man Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Teen On Marriage Promise Denied Bail; Karnataka HC Says He May Renew Plea After Her Examination

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case alleging offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 137(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner sexually assaulted the complainant’s daughter, who was 17 when the complaint was filed and approximately 16 at the outset of the alleged conduct, on the promise of marriage, and threatened her and her mother.

The investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed; the petitioner had been in judicial custody for five months.

He relied on alleged contradictions between the victim’s police statement and her statement before the Magistrate, and on a coordinate Bench decision granting bail in another case.

The State and the de facto complainant opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the risk of interference with the trial.

The Court considered the bail power under Section 483 of the BNSS and the allegations under Sections 64(2)(m), 137(2) and 351(2) of the BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

It noted that Section 6 of the POCSO Act prescribes a severe punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

The Court also recognised the general principle that bail is the rule and jail an exception, while stating that each case must be assessed on its facts and that pre-trial custody is not to be imposed as punishment.

It considered, but distinguished, Dhananjay v. State of Karnataka and Another, where bail had been granted in different circumstances.

The Court found that the complaint and the victim’s statement before the Magistrate disclosed material supporting the allegation of sexual assault, and noted that the victim’s age was not disputed.

It considered the charged offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act serious and concluded that the alleged threats and the circumstances described in the complaint and statement created a risk that the petitioner could interfere with the prosecution witnesses or hamper the trial if released before the victim was examined.

The Court held that the petitioner’s five months in custody and completion of the investigation did not, in the circumstances, outweigh that concern; nor did the cited coordinate Bench decision establish a basis for bail on these facts.

It nevertheless granted the petitioner liberty to apply to the trial court for bail after the victim had been examined, if so advised.