Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Manjunath vs State By Kanakapura Town

High Court Of Karnataka|29 January, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8040/2018 BETWEEN:
Manjunath S/o.Muniraju Aged about 31 years R/at.Dolasuru Grama Sandanahalli Post Denkani Kote, Dharmapuri Town Tamilnadu – 635 107.
(By Sri. Halesha R.G., Advocate) AND:
State by Kanakapura Town Police Station Rept. By State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka – 560 001.
...Petitioner ...Respondent (By Smt.Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.101/2018 (Spl.C.No.118/2018) of Kanakapura Town P.S., Ramanagara District for the offence P/U/S 323, 376(1) of IPC and Sec.6, 21 of POCSO Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking to release him on bail in Crime No.101/2018 of Kanakapura Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 376(1) of IPC and under Sections 6 and 21 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Gist of the complaint is that the accused No.1 with an intention to have sexual assault with CW- 2, who being the minor aged about 6½ years, on 20.03.2018 at about 3 ‘o’ clock afternoon, slapped on her face and committed sexual assault on her. Accused No.2 - wife of accused No.1 by giving chocolate told the victim not to inform this to anybody. Accordingly, a case has been registered.
4. It is submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that already charge sheet has been filed and petitioner-accused No.1 is not required for the purpose of investigation or interrogation. He further submitted that there are no specific averments in the statement given by the victim before the Mahila police that accused No.1 slapped on her face and sexually assaulted her. He further submitted that accused No.2 is already released on bail by this Court. Hence, on the ground of parity petitioner- accused No.1 is also entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted that trial may take some more time and if petitioner-accused No.1 is detained in jail, it may cause inconvenience. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently submitted that there is ample material to show that accused No.1 slapped on the face of CW-2, who being the minor, aged 6½ years and sexually assaulted the child. She further submitted that statement of the victim has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate. In the said statement, the victim has consistently stated that petitioner-accused No.1 slapped on her face and thereafter, he sexually assaulted on her. There is prima facie material as against the petitioner to show that he has sexually assaulted the minor girl. Even the medical records also clearly indicates that the minor girl has been sexually assaulted. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and other materials, which has been produced in this behalf.
7. As could be seen from the records there is material to show that the petitioner-accused No.1 took the minor girl, who is aged 6 ½ years and thereafter, he slapped on her face and sexually assaulted the minor girl. Though the charge sheet has been filed, it is not a ground to release petitioner-accused No.1 on bail. As the name of the accused No.2 was not seen in the FIR as well as in the complaint, this Court has released accused No.2 on bail. The ground of parity cannot be extended to accused No.1.
8. Under the said facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has not made out any good grounds to release him on bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE VMB
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Manjunath vs State By Kanakapura Town

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
29 January, 2019
Judges
  • B A Patil