Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To BS Yediyurappa In POCSO Case, Trial Court Directed To Decide On Cognizance Afresh

The Karnataka High Court on Friday (February 7) set aside the trial order taking cognizance of offences alleged against former Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa in a case registered under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) Act

In doing so the court partly allowed his plea for quashing the POCSO Case; it however remitted the matter back to the trial court while saying that the the probe and final report remains intact. The court however allowed his plea seeking anticipatory bail.

Justice M Nagaprasanna while pronouncing the order said:

"Petition is allowed in part. Order of taking cognizance stands obliterated. The crime and investigation and final report remains intact. Matter remitted back to the trial court. All contentions remain open". 

The court said that the petitioner is at liberty to avail of such remedy as is available in law at the appropriate stage before the appropriate forum. 

The court had reserved the order on January  17 after hearing all parties. As per the complaint filed by the mother (complainant) of a 17-year-old girl, Yediyurappa sexually assaulted her daughter during a meeting in February last year, at his residence in Bengaluru. On March 14, 2024 the Sadashivanagar police had registered the case. Later, it was transferred to CID for further investigation which re-registered the FIR and filed a chargesheet.

Yediyurappa has opposed the contention of the state government that he 'calculatedly' filed his plea for quashing a POCSO case after the complainant's death. He had argued that it wasn't that the complainant had told him when she was going to pass away, adding that he was not a magician.

He had further questioned the intervening one and half month time period between the alleged incident and registration of the FIR, adding that the conduct of the complainant maybe looked into.

Special Public Prosecutor Professor Ravivarma Kumar had while pointing to Section 29 POCSO Act, argued that unlike the normal foundation for criminal jurisprudence, the petitioner is presumed to be guilty.

Section 29 POCSO states that where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved. Section 30 pertains to Presumption of culpable mental state.

Further, "Parliament has declared that it is a heinous crime. Therefore, in light of presumption a sec 482 petition does not lie in POCSO cases. From the evidence placed on record the prosecution has made out a strong case unless he rebuts the presumption," Kumar had said.

He had also pointed to the FSL reports saying “"Kindly see the FSL report. The opinion says it is certified to be genuine and not morphed. Mobile phone (of the victim which had recording between complainant and Yediyurappa)) was sent to National Forensic Science University in Gujarat".

Senior Advocate C V Nagesh appearing for the petitioner had contended that "At what stage is the presumption applicable, at the time of FIR, filing of chargesheet or framing of charge. Proof of contrary of presumption would not arise at the time hearing of discharge etc".

Referring to Section 30 Nagesh had said, "Kindly go to Sec 30, when presumption for offence would be only during the trial, to find out what was his mental state. It cannot be prior to the trial".

Nagesh referring to a judgment of the Allahabad high court said that presumption can be only during trial. "Only after trial the burden shifts on the accused as regards presumption under Sec 29, 30 (POCSO)," he said.

Nagesh had said that at this stage when the petition is seeking quashing of trial court's order taking cognizance and the FIR, the prosecution cannot seek presumption which ensures to its benefit. "It will be available only after evidence is recorded," he added.

Nagesh thereafter said, "The mother and daughter went back to the house of accused, the object was to take a picture with the accused and what mischief they did I do not know".

To a query of the court "They even questioned you (Yediyurappa) about what you did".

To this Nagesh had said, "What happened on that day, I asked for the grievance of the complainant and called police commissioner of Bengaluru and asked the ladies to visit the PC(police commissioner). The same day they went and meet PC. When they met PC why no statement about incident was made. It raises a doubt".

Nagesh thereafter said that on February 5, 2024 the complainant and her daughter visited the former CM at his house again. "If really any such incident had happened on February 2, would they have come again," he added.

At this stage the court orally said, "They came not only for pic, but mobile recording and question and answer".

To this Nagesh had said that they did not come for questioning Yediyurappa but "only for taking picture" with him. He said that Yediyurappa spoke to the police commissioner again on February 5, 2024. "I am not disputing the recording as recorded in the phone of the victim as of now," he however added.

Countering the prosecution's case Nagesh meanwhile argued, "A lady who suffered sexual assault at my hand they came to me time and again".

To this the court orally asked if Nagesh was suggesting that "happening of such a thing is highly improbable". Nagesh responded by saying, "Their conduct in waiting for one and half month against me has to be looked into".

Nagesh further said that the complainant's object of the purpose of visiting the petitioner was to get his help in the previous case registered by them.

To this the court orally said, "He was checking about the previous case. The statement in the mobile recording is disturbing.Gospel truth on both sides (by way of statements) cannot be accepted. Collection of evidence by the IO is to be put to test".

Nagesh however pointed to the explanation in the petitioner's statement, adding that there are also five prosecution witness. "Why victims statement should only be accepted and their statements be discarded at this time. Lordships can secure the case diary and examine it to see what other witnesses have said," he said.

Nagesh said that evidence would be putting the statement to test. "Section 214(Offering gift or restoration of property in consideration of screening offender) and 204(Destruction of document or electronic record to prevent its production as evidence) (IPC) is not maintainable against the petitioner," he added.

Nagesh had further said that there was "no proper judicial application of mind" while the trial court took cognizance of the matter. "If at all the court as to refer the matter back to the trial court then court may suggest about the statement of witnesses," he added.

Concluding his arguments, Nagesh submitted that the prosecution ought to have complied with Sec 41A (Notice of appearance before police officer) CrPC by issuing notice, as offence charged is punishable upto 5 years.

The high court thereafter reserved its verdict and continued the operation of the interim order till the pronouncement of judgment.

Case title: BS Yediyurappa v/s The Criminal Investigating Department CID

Case No: WP 15522/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 49