IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6346/2018 BETWEEN:
GAJENDRA S/O. GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O. THIRUMALAKOPPA VILLAGE, VOKKALERI HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KARNATAKA – 563 101.
(BY SRI MOHAN KUMAR. D, ADV.) AND:
THE STATE KOLAR RURAL POLICE STATION KOLAR REP. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001.
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.183/2018 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376D OF IPC AND SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT, PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR UNDER S.C.NO.93/2018.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Kolar Rural Police have charge sheeted the petitioner in Crime No.183/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 376(d) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
2. It is alleged that the petitioner luring the victim (C.W.2) aged 17 years, of some sweets and soft drinks and developing intimacy with her committed repeated penetrative sexual assault on her during the period of ten months prior to 26.03.2018. The victim girl delivered a baby boy on 26.03.2018 in the District Hospital, Kolar.
3. Initially, the case was registered against the five accused. While filing the charge sheet, the other four accused were dropped.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FSL report is not yet received and the trial is being delayed and there is violation of Section 35 of the POCSO Act. Thus he seeks bail.
5. In the statement of the victim recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she implicates the petitioner as offender. Section 35 of the POCSO Act is incorporated in the Act for the benefit of the victim. The Act nowhere states that when the said provision is not complied with, it confers right of bail on the accused.
6. Under these circumstances, the order of this Court in VINAY vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KEREGODU POLICE, MANDYA DISTRICT - (2017) 4 KCCR 3159 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable. Apart from that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GAJANAND AGARWAL vs.
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS – (2006) 12 SCC 131 has held that it is settled law that orders of bail are not necessarily orders of any precedental value and they shall not be treated as precedent.
Therefore, the petition is dismissed. The trial Court is requested to expedite the trial.
Sd/- JUDGE VP