IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9365 OF 2017 BETWEEN Manjunath @ Manju, Son of Veerabhadrappa, Aged about 31 years, Residing at No.49, Care of Kidzee School, Near Matri Espera Apartments, Bellandur Post, Bengaluru-560 103.
Permanently residing at Kallur Grama and Post, Kadaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District-572 101 ... Petitioner (By Sri.Chandramouli H.S. Advocate) AND The State by Marathahalli Police Station, Marathahalli, Bengaluru-560 032 (By Sri B.T.Venkatesh, Spl.P.P) ... Respondent This Crl.P filed u/s.439 CR.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.11/2017 of Marathahalli Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence P/U/S 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the court made the following:
ORDER This is a petition filed by petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking his release on bail for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of POCSO Act and Section 376 of IPC registered by the respondent police in Cr.No.11/2017. After investigation, chargesheet came to be filed.
2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant is the mother of the victim girl. Victim girl is aged about 3 and half years studying in Kidzee School in Kariyammana Agrahara. The allegation is that accused has committed sexual assault on the minor child on 17.12.2017. The said victim girl narrated the incident to her mother.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent state.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that looking to the prosecution material the incident is alleged to have taken place, as per medical examination, on 17.02.2017. But whereas complaint came to be filed on 18.02.2017 i.e., on next date of the incident. Therefore, he made submission that this itself clearly shows the fallacy of the prosecution case. He further submits that even looking to the averments in the complaint and also other prosecution material, there is no case made out by the prosecution for the alleged offences as against the present petitioner. Hence, he submitted, from the date of arrest, petitioner is in custody and there is no progress in the case. Inspite of receiving summons by the witnesses number of times repeatedly, the witnesses have not appeared in the case. Hence, the delay in completing the trial of the case and therefore by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner- accused may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned Spl.PP for the state opposed the petition on the ground that victim girl has clearly stated in her statement that petitioner has put his finger in the vaginal area and thereby he has committed alleged offence. He submitted that looking to the chargesheet material collected during investigation there is prima-facie case as against the petitioner and there are other cases of similar nature filed by other students. Hence, he is not entitled to be granted bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, chargesheet material and other materials produced in the case. In the report of the doctor, there is mention that there was insertion of finger into the vaginal canal. I have also perused the statement of the victim girl wherein she has also stated about the alleged incident. The complaint averments coupled with the statement of the victim girl at this stage, prima-facie makes out a case. Though there may be submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the progress in the case is concerned, in that regard directions can be issued to the concerned court to take up the matter on priority basis. But in so far as the alleged offence and materials collected is concerned, the prosecution has placed prima-facie material to show the involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offence. Therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
7. However, the observation made by this Court in the body of the above order while rejecting the bail petition is only for the purpose of disposal of this petition.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the date of arrest the petitioner is in custody and there is no progress in the case in recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses. In view of the said submission and also under the provisions of Section 35(1) and (2) of POCSo Act, learned Special Judge dealing with the matter is hereby directed to take up the matter on priority basis, complete the trial and dispose of the case within the time provided under Section 35 (2) of the POCSO Act. In case it is not completed, the petitioner is at liberty to move the concerned court seeking his release on bail.
Intimate the concerned court accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-