IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE H B PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL PETITION No.1296/2019 BETWEEN:
MR. AMITH S/O. SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NO.8, GURUMURTHY BUILDING, 4TH MAIN ROAD, LCRS YASHWANTHPUR BENGALURU – 560 022 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAMMED NIYAZ S., ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YASHWANTHPUR POLICE STATION BANGALORE BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001 … RESPONDENT [BY SRI. NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP] THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.PC. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR. NO.290/2018 [SPL. C.C. NO.711/2018] OF YESHWANTHAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 4, 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SEC. 376, 384 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard both sides on the petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused has been falsely implicated in the matter and that he is in judicial custody since more than nine months. The alleged victim also has not supported the case of the prosecution during the trial.
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the alleged offences are heinous in nature. Merely because alleged victim girl is stated to have not supported the case of the prosecution, evidence of other material witnesses who have supported the case of the prosecution cannot be discarded.
4. A perusal of the material placed before this Court, at this stage, go to show that the present petitioner is alleged to have committed offences punishable under sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sections 376 and 384 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
5. The present petition is the second similar petition of the present petitioner. The earlier similar petition in Criminal Petition No.7591/2018 was rejected by this Court on merits on 13.12.2018 under a detailed order. That being the case, it is for the petitioner to make out and to show change, if any, in the circumstances of the case warranting him to enlarge on bail. In the grounds of the petition, the petitioner has alleged that change in circumstances is completion of the investigation and respondent-Police filing charge sheet. However, it cannot be ignored of the fact that charge sheet was filed on 27.09.2018 which was even prior to rejection of his earlier similar petition which was on 13.12.2018. As such, the said aspect cannot be considered as change in the circumstances. Therefore, having no reasons to notice any change in the circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE AN/-