Court emphasizes the sanctity of magistrate-recorded statements, grants bail with stringent conditions
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Murali, in a POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) case, underscoring the importance of the sanctity of statements recorded by a magistrate. The petitioner was previously denied bail by a lower court, prompting the appeal to the High Court.
Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty, presiding over the case, noted that the initial statement of the 17-year-old victim, recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, did not implicate Murali in any criminal activity. The victim had initially stated before the magistrate that she left home voluntarily after being scolded and had not accused Murali of any wrongdoing. However, a subsequent statement, recorded independently by the Investigating Officer, included allegations of sexual assault against Murali, which led to the filing of a charge-sheet.
The court highlighted that any further statements of the victim post the magistrate-recorded statement must also be recorded before a magistrate to maintain their sanctity. The independent recording by the Investigating Officer was criticized for undermining this legal process.
Justice Shetty, in his order, expressed disapproval of the Investigating Officer's actions and granted anticipatory bail to Murali, emphasizing that the process adopted frustrated the sanctity of the initial magistrate-recorded statement. The court laid down stringent conditions for the bail, including the requirement for Murali to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days, provide a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties, and ensure regular court appearances.
The court further directed Murali not to tamper with evidence, cooperate with the investigation, and refrain from engaging in similar offenses in the future. This decision underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring procedural fairness and protecting individual rights against investigative overreach.
Bottom Line :
Anticipatory bail granted in POCSO case where victim in her statement under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 before Magistrate had not made any allegation against petitioner and Investigating Officer later recorded further statement independently instead of getting further statement recorded before Magistrate; Court held such practice frustrates sanctity of Magistrate-recorded statement.
Statutory provision(s):
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 183
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 137(2), 351(2), 64(2), 249
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 6
Murali v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc id # 2989306
