Victim's Conduct Not Above Suspicion: Karnataka HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To National Level Hockey Player Accused In POCSO Case
The Karnataka High Court observed that pre-trial detention is unwarranted as it will be a serious stigma on the character of a person.
The Court enlarged a national-level hockey player on anticipatory bail after he was accused of offences under Sections 376(3) and 420 of IPC as well as under Sections 4(2), 5(L) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar observed, “Right of Freedom is a fundamental right and merely on the basis of allegations, the Fundamental Right cannot be curtailed and the matter requires a detailed trial and if the petitioner is found guilty during the course of the trial, then the law will take its own course. However, the pre-trial detention is unwarranted as it will be a serious stigma on the character of a person.”
Brief Facts-
The allegations made in the complaint disclose that, the petitioner, Varun Kumar and the victim developed intimacy in 2019 and continued the same for four years. The first allegation of rape or the development of a physical relationship under the guise of marriage is in July 2019. Before May 2023, admittedly the father of the victim passed away but they continued to meet. They even continued to meet after the victim attained the age of majority. But, during the period after attaining the majority, the victim nowhere complained about her being enticed or exploited by the petitioner. Admittedly both victim and petitioner were residing in the same location at SAI Bengaluru.
The Court noted that the allegations of physical relationships at different locations in SAI Bengaluru, Delhi, etc clearly disclose that, both parties were having a love affair and they developed a relationship with each other.
The Court further noted that the family of the victim is a highly reputed as well as highly influential family as the father of the victim was a retired Assistant Commissioner in the State of Telangana, while her other sister is a Police Officer, one more sister is admittedly serving in Railway Department and her mother is attached to a political party.
“Under such circumstances, the question of petitioner blackmailing the victim girl under the guise of certain photographs etc. holds no water.”, the Court stated.
The Court noted that there is an inordinate delay of 4 to 5 years in complaining and excuses given appear to be sarcastic.
As per the Court though there is an attempt made to incorporate a presumption in favour of prosecution under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the said presumption cannot be made applicable at this juncture since the matter is still at the stage of investigation and that presumption would arise only during trial.
“In the instant case, the parties have maintained a relationship for nearly four years even after the death of victim’s father, which discloses that it was not on a ground of a false promise to marry. But, for the reasons such as culture between the families, certain issues might have triggered in breaking down the relationship.” Court observed.
The Court mentioned the decision of the Supreme Court in Shivashankar v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 18 SCC 204 where it was held that the term of breach of promise to marry is not the same as of false promise to marry and noted that “In the instant case, there is no material evidence placed to show that the relationship of the parties was developed under false promise of marriage.”
The Court stated that merely because the allegations are made regarding provisions of the POCSO Act or the provisions under Section 376 of IPC are quoted, the anticipatory bail cannot be rejected as observed by Apex Court.
The Court enlarged the petitioner on bail and allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Varun Kumar v. State of Karnataka
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. Arjun Syal, Adv. Mehak Jaggi, Adv. Sivarama Krishnan, Adv. Sindhu V.
Respondent: HCGP K. Nageshwarappa
