Karnataka High Court Grants Interim Bail To POCSO Case Accused To Marry The Victim
|The Karnataka High Court granted interim bail to an accused in a POCSO case to marry his alleged victim.
The families were seeking closure of the proceedings against the man and wanted the two to get married.
The Court was hearing a challenge to the proceedings arising out of crime registered for offences punishable under Section 376 (2)(n) of the IPC and Sections 5(L), 5(J)(II)& 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offices Act, 2012.
The bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “I deem it appropriate to grant the petitioner interim bail in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. enabling the petitioner to come out and get married to the victim.”
Advocate M. Sharass Chandra appeared for the Appellant.
Brief Facts-
In the present case, the mother of the victim registered a complaint that her daughter and the petitioner were in love with each other while studying at School and the petitioner and her daughter used to meet often and on one fine day, the petitioner goes to the school in the bike, takes the complainant’s daughter to an isolated place and commits sexual assault on her. She was then 16 years and 9 months old. The police conducted an investigation and filed a charge sheet against the accused/petitioner and the matter is now pending. The petitioner/accused has been in judicial custody. From the sexual act of the petitioner, the victim has a child who is a year old.
The Court noted that the DNA test conducted at the birth of the child suggested that the petitioner is the biological father and the victim is the biological mother of the child. Therefore, the Court suggested that the child born from the sexual act between the two is not in dispute.
The Court said that, given the mother's responsibility to raise her child at such a tender age and the dire situation they are in, it permitted the petitioner to marry the victim, who is now over 18 years old.
While justifying the course taken by it, the Court said, “…The new born life does not know as to what has happened. It should not suffer the ignominy of any kind in future. Therefore, to protect the interest of the child and also responsibility of the mother in bringing up the child, this direction is found necessary to be issued.”
Consequently, the Court adjourned the matter to July 4.
Cause Title: XYZ v. State of Karnataka