IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.3518/2019 BETWEEN:
Smt. Geeta W/o. Manjunatha, Aged about 36 years, R/o. Manikanta Circle, Nittuvalli, Davanagere – 577 002. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Jayaprakash K.N., Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, Davanagere Women Police Station, Represented by its S.P.P., High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri. S. Rachaiah, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.121/2018 (S.C.No.187/2018) of Women Police Station, Davanagere for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, Sections 4, l6, 17 of POCSO Act and Sections 370, 376, 506, 149 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner/accused No.2 is seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.121/2018 with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 and Sections 4, 6, 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 370, 506 and 149 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, accused Nos.1 to 4 are alleged to have committed the aforestated offences. It is stated that CW.6-the victim is a minor girl, aged about 15 years and was taken by accused Nos.2 and 3 for the purpose of prostitution and to earn money. It is stated that accused Nos.2 to 4 have similarly secured many girls from different places and have engaged them in prostitution. The further case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.2 to 4 have taken the victim girl from Davanagere to Gadag and that accused Nos.1, 5 and 6 have committed the offences as mentioned in the charge sheet.
3. The complaint was lodged and charge sheet has been filed after completion of the investigation. It is stated that the trial has commenced and the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, who are CW.6-mother of the victim and CW.8-victim have been examined and both have not supported the case of the prosecution. In fact, it is stated that CW.8 has not identified the petitioner/accused No.2.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader opposes grant of bail and submits that though accused No.3 has been released on bail, principles of parity cannot be extended to the present petitioner and seeks dismissal of the petition.
5. It is contended that the only evidence made out against the petitioner is for the offence punishable under Section 370 of Cr.P.C.
6. Investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. The prime witnesses being the private witness i.e., CW.6 and CW.8 have been examined and hence, the question of tampering with the prime witnesses as such cannot be a ground at this stage to deny the petitioner bail.
7. It is also to be noted that most of the other witnesses are primarily official witnesses. No doubt, if there are any criminal antecedents against the petitioner, it is to be kept in mind while considering the application seeking bail.
8. However, the material placed on record with respect to the case on hand is also to be looked into. In the present case, for the purpose of the present proceedings, it is noticed that CWs.6 and 8, who are prime witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. However, it is made clear that it is only a prima facie view and the question of deciding whether there was commission of offences and as regards the role of the petitioner in commission of offences is a matter for trial.
9. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 09.08.2018. That the evidence of victim and her mother, who are prime witnesses is complete. The petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
10. It is to be observed that in many cases, criminal antecedents are pressed into service to deny the bail.
11. It is to be observed that in appropriate case the prosecution to initiate the proceedings for cancellation of bail, if material on record discloses that there has been violation of bail conditions and abuse of the liberty by the accused on being enlarged on bail in previous proceedings.
12 . In the result, the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.121/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 and Sections 4, 6, 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 370, 506 and 149 of IPC subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate for the expeditious disposal of the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(iv) In the event of change of address, the petitioner to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(v) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioner, shall result in cancellation of bail.
(vi) The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the concerned Station House Officer, Davanagere Women Police Station, Davanagere once in a month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till trial is concluded.
(vii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities of like nature.
Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE NR/-