Karnataka High Court Enlarged The Bail With Few Restrictions In The POCSO Harassment Case
Title: Somashekar v. State of Karnataka and Ors.
Decided on: 11th October, 2023
Cr Petition 7421/2023
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice S Vishwajith Shetty
Introduction
The Karnataka High Court enlarged the bail of the petitioner who was appearing before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Hassan in SPL.C.No.279/2023 for an offence under Sections 448, 504 and 305 of the IPC, Section 12 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015.
Facts of the Case
The de facto complainant, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, went to Sakaleshpura Rural Police Station and filed a written complaint saying that the petitioner had been pressuring her young daughter, who was about 17 years old, to fall in love with him. The petitioner allegedly entered the complainant’s home and yelled out the name of her young daughter. He revealed that he was her daughter’s lover when the complainant asked him about his whereabouts. The petitioner received advice from the complainant and her brother-in-law Praveen, but he entered the complainant’s home, got into a fight with her little daughter, and began pressuring her to fall in love with him.
When the complainant’s daughter objected, the petitioner allegedly verbally harassed her and threatened to take her life before leaving. The complainant’s daughter allegedly walked inside the house and hanged herself with a saree after feeling humiliated by the aforementioned incident. In light of these facts, the complainant went to the police and handed over a typed complaint, upon which a FIR was filed.
Courts analysis and decision
It was noted that it is clear from a reading of Section 31 of the POCSO Act that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code are made applicable for the cases to be tried under said Act, hence the provision for bail under the Criminal Procedure Code would also be applicable for the cases registered under the POCSO Act’s provisions.
It is a given that the provisions of the later of the two special enactments will take precedence whenever there is a dispute between their provisions. This is due to the fact that the legislature was aware of the older statute when the latter measure was being passed. It must be understood that the provisions of the later act would take precedence over the previous statute unless the legislature expressly states in the later statute that the earlier statute’s provisions would apply.
The bench stated, “In the background of the aforesaid principle of law, having regard to Section 42A of the POCSO Act, it is very clear that the provisions of the POCSO Act will prevail over the provisions of the Atrocities Act.”
Reiterating the principle of Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.5189/2020, the court observed that the Special Courts established under the POCSO Act will preside over the trial of the case brought forth in accordance with the provisions of the Atrocities Act and POCSO Act. The accused may appeal the Special Judge’s decision to deny bail under Section 439 of the Cr.PC by submitting a bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.PC to the High Court.
The court determined, “The nature of allegations made in the complaint, the aforesaid submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be simply brushed aside. Petitioner has not committed any such act in the house of the complainant which would have abetted or instigated the minor girl to commit suicide.”
Further the Court also observed that the little girl was reportedly being harassed and abused by the petitioner while the complainant and her brother-in-law were on the scene. The complainant’s and her brother-in-law’s actions cast substantial doubt on the charges they made in their complaint.
Thus, The petition was allowed and the petitioner was directed to be enlarged on bail pending before the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Hassan directing the petitioner to execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety; appear regularly on all the dates of hearing; shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses; shall not involve in similar offences in future; and shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aashi Narayan