IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6037/2017 BETWEEN:
CHITTI BABU S/O BALAJI NAIDU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT 3/1, CHANDRASHEKARNAIDU BUILDING 1ST CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, 80 FT. ROAD, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR KATHRIGUPPE BENGALURU-560 085.
(BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR R S., ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA REP.BY SUBRAMANYAPURA P.S BENGALURU REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001 (BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.287/2017 OF SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 4,6 AND 8 OF POCSO ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 4, 6 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.287/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case that the father of the victim girl lodged the complaint, wherein it is stated that he is having two daughter, victim girl is aged 9 years studying in 4th standard and another girl is aged about 6 years studying in 1st standard. It is further alleged that on that night, as the complainant was working as a Plumber, somebody called him in connection with his work, he left the house at 6.00p.m. when both the daughters were in the house. At about 9.50p.m. he received a phone call from one Dhananjay, who is his neighbour, informing him that his elder daughter/victim was making hue and cry and when he went to the complainant’s house, pushed the door, the petitioner herein ran away from the house wearing his pant. Thereafter, the complainant came to the house and when enquired with the victim girl, she told about the sexual act done on her by the petitioner, which acts are mentioned in detail in the complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered for the said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the victim girl borrowed loan of Rs.3.00 Lakhs from the petitioner and in order to avoid payment of the said loan, he has given such false complaint. Perusing the complaint averments and the statement of the victim girl, so also, the statement of Dhananjay, who has seen the petitioner running out of the house of the complainant, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted at this stage. There is prima-facie case as against the petitioner herein. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR