Ashok G. Nijagannavar J. of the Karnataka HC allowed a petition for the grant of bail, and attached securities of 1 lakh rupees and on the condition that the accused petitioner would not tamper with the evidences.
The brother of a deceased victim filed a complaint that the accused-petitioner had kidnapped his sister after promising to marry her. The mother complained that the petitioner had sexually abused the girl and at the time of the incident she was a minor and the incident had compelled her to commit suicide. The court noticed and recorded it under Section 164 of CrPC that the deceased victim had been living with the accused out of her own accord. There was no specific evidence of kidnapping or sexual abuse. The case filed against the petitioner-accused was headed under the provisions of Section 439 CrPC for offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 along with Section 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Sessions Court and consequently his bail application had been rejected.
The counsel of the petitioner held up two cases in the Court, namely Dataram Singh v. State of UP (2018) 3 SCC 22 and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40. In the former case, the court believed that every person was innocent unless proved. Hence the bail was said to be a general rule. In the latter case, the court observed that the purpose of bail is not punitive but a mere measure of securing the attendance of the accused in the courtroom.
In view of the above arguments submitted, the court granted bail to the accused petitioner.
(Santosh vs State of Karnataka Criminal Petition no. 101779 of 2019)