IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5164 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
MANJUNATH S/O.NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT.SIDDANAHALLI NANDAGUDI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE – 562 122.
... PETITIONER (BY SMT.RATHIHALLI GEETHA VEERANNA, ADV.,) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE BY HEBBAL P.S., REPTD., BY HIGH COURT GOVT. PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.P.YOGANNA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.221/2018 (SPL.C.NO.166/2019) REGISTERED BY HEBBAL POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 363, 366-A, 376, 506 AND 392 OF IPC AND SECTION 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Perused the records.
2. The allegations against the petitioner is that he has taken the victim girl who was aged 15 years and had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions. On the basis of the missing complaint, the police registered a case initially for the offence under Section 363 of IPC, at the time of filing of the charge sheet, they found that the accused had sexual intercourse with the minor girl, thereafter, invoked sections 366-A, 376, 506, 392 of IPC and also Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein she has not stated about the alleged sexual intercourse. However, in the statement recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the mother of the complainant has stated that the victim girl has told before her with regard to the sexual act.
4. Considering the above facts and the age of the victim girl, in my opinion, this is not a fit case to release the accused on bail, particularly, when the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 have already been examined, merely, because PWs-1 and 2 have not supported the case of the prosecution, it is too premature at this stage to draw any inference on the basis of such material, when the trial Court has made an observation that all the witnesses are examined. The Court may draw inference either in favour prosecution or in favor of the accused.
5. Under the above said circumstances, I find no strong reasons are made out to enlarge the petitioner on bail particularly, when the trial has already been commenced, though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been in judicial custody since one year. Hence, the trial Court is hereby directed to conclude the trial within four months preferably or as expeditiously as possible and dispose of the case on merits.
With these observations, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE VMB