IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6375/2019 BETWEEN:
MUNIRAJU @ KARTHIK S/O.LATE VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.22 LAKSHMI LAYOUT MOSQUE ROAD, HONGASANDRA BANGALORE-560 114.
(BY SRI: AMEENULLA N.K., ADV.,) AND:
STATE BY BEGUR POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001.
...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI: ROHITH B.J., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.276/2018 (SPL.C.C.NO.112/2019) REGISTERED BY BEGURU POLICE STATION, BENGALURU PENDING ON THE FILE OF LIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SITTING IN CHILD FRIENDLY COURT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 363 AND 376 OF IPC AND SECTION 4,6,8 OF POCSO ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 363, 376 of IPC and Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act which later culminated in Spl.C.C.No.112/2019 on the file of LIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, sitting at Child friendly Court, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru.
2. It is the third round of bail petition filed before this Court on the changed circumstances. There is absolutely no impact on the bail petition on the basis of any changed circumstances. Unless, the petitioner shows the changed circumstance, the Court cannot entertain the bail petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim girl and her father has already been examined before the Trial Court and the entire case result made the victim girl who turned hostile to the prosecution and not support to any extent. Even in the statement given by the victim girl before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she never made any allegations against the petitioner or in the statement made under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. made before the Police. The father of the victim girl also turned hostile to the case of prosecution and both the victim girl and her father was examined as PWs. 1 and 2 by the prosecution in Spl.C.C.No.112/2019. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that it is a strong changed circumstance in favour of the accused.
4. The learned counsel also produced the deposition of PW.1 before the Court along with the statement made by the victim girl under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. On careful perusal of the same, she turned hostile. The learned Public Prosecutor has examined the prosecution witnesses. Even in the course of cross-examination, the victim girl accepts the statement made by her under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. and she categorically denied the statement being made before the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
5. Accepting the particular portion of statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. marked, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of the victim girl. She has categorically stated that she never stated that the accused has not done anything to her. She further submits that she has crossed 17 years and she used to go to school between 8.00 p.m. to 3.30 p.m., she did not know even the lodging of complaint by her father. If it is gone to the extent of showing that the victim girl has not made any allegations against the accused and when such being the material made available on record, the learned District Judge is still relied upon the statement made under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. and medical evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner-accused cannot be enlarged on bail. If for any reasons, in future, after any changed circumstances arises, the Trial Court can take into consideration at the time of considering the evidence on the merits of the case.
6. For the present, when the backbone of the prosecution is broken due to the hostile of the victim girl and her father and particularly the accused has been in custody from past 11 months, right of liberty should not be curtailed which jealously safeguarded under the provisions of Constitution of India. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner accused has made out a case to enlarge him on bail. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner- accused shall be released on bail in connection with Spl.C.C.No.112/2019 on the file of LIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, sitting at Child friendly Court, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 376 of IPC and Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the court till the case registered against him is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SSD