IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2017
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5204/2017
SRI UDAYA KIRAN
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
NO.204, ASHOK VIEW
HUBLI – 580 023. …PETITIONER
(BY SRI DIWAKARA K., ADV.)
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HANUMANTHANAGAR P.S.
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING -560 001. …RESPONDENT
(BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.100/2017 OF
HANUMANTHANAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 354A(1) OF IPC AND SEC.7 AND 11(ii) OF
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
The petitioner/accused is arrested by the
respondent/Police in their Crime No.100/2017 in respect
of the offences under Section 354A(1) of IPC and Sections
7 and 11(ii) of the POCSO Act, 2012.
2. The allegation is, the victim girl Kum.Niharika,
aged 8 years is the daughter of the petitioner and the
complainant. They are living separately from June 2016.
The petitioner has filed a petition for custody of his minor
child under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. By virtue
of interim order, he was getting the interim custody of
the child on Saturday and Sunday. During February
2017, since the child refused to go to school, she was
taken to a private hospital. Since the petitioner insisted
for the interim custody despite knowing that the child
has health issues, a complaint was lodged to the Police
by the mother. She was taken to NIMHANS for treatment
on 28.2.2017 and 3.3.2017 and was treated. The child
has stated during Counselling at NIMHANS that her
father/petitioner herein behaves in inappropriate manner
and hurts her feeling.
3. It is also the complaint allegation that on
9.3.2017, the petitioner molested the child.
4. Sri.Diwakara.K., learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the entire allegation is
concocted and false. The complainant/wife had filed an
application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC
seeking injunction against the husband/petitioner from
visiting the child near the school. After the said
application came to be rejected, she lodged this
complaint on 23.3.2016 against him and other family
members at his residence. The child is tutored by his
wife to make false allegation against him. The petitioner
undertakes not to press for the interim custody of the
child until disposal of the case on its merits. If
anticipatory bail is granted, he will appear before the I.O.
and subject himself for further investigation.
5. Perused the case diary and also the statement of
the victim child recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
6. In the light of the strained relationship between
the parents, it cannot be said at this stage anything
about the merits or de-merits of the allegation. However,
having regard to the circumstances explained by the
petitioner, there is no impediment to allow the petition.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is
granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.100/2017 of
respondent/Police, subject to the following conditions:
(i) He shall appear before the respondent/
Investigating Officer forthwith. In that
event, I.O. is at liberty to interrogate him
and subject him for medical
(ii) In the event of his arrest, he shall be
released on bail on executing a self bond
for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one
surety for the likesum.
(iii) He shall not approach the victim child or
the complainant Smt.Deepa either
directly or telephonically.
(iv) He shall not terrorise them.
In view of disposal of the main petition,
I.A.No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration, hence,