IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3624/2019 BETWEEN:
P.Sunil Kumar, Aged about 22 years, S/o Padmanabha, Residing at, “Kanmanchara” Behind Srinivasa Talkies, Pavagada, Tumkur District-561 012. (By Sri.Vijaya Kumar, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by Rajgopalnagara Police Station, Bengaluru-560 079 Rep.by SPP High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-01.
(By Sri.Honnappa, HCGP) …Petitioner …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.655/2018 (Spl.CC.No.401/2019) of Rajagopal Nagar, Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence p/u/s 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Sec.6 of POCSO Act and Sec.4 of Child Marriage Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. Respondent-Police have registered a case against the petitioner in Spl.C.C.No.401/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 4 of Child Marriage Act.
3. On perusal of the record, it shows that, the statement of victim girl is available which shows that age of the victim is approximately about 17 years and she was persuaded to marry petitioner-accused and they had sexual intercourse. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the evidence has been commenced already before the trial Court.
4. Under the above said circumstances, it is not the stage where court can appreciate the evidence and draw any inference in favour of prosecution or against it. It is the domain of the trial Court. Hence, I do no find any strong reasons to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
5. At this stage, learned counsel submits that one public prosecutor who is attached to this case, also attached to other three cases and he is unable to cope up with the work and attend this particular case. Hence, the trial is being delayed. However, it is the problem in the entire State. In fact, the Director of Prosecution has to take proper measures in appointing sufficient number of public prosecutors to each and every criminal Court in the State. Otherwise, Government would create frustration in Courts. Therefore, it is just and necessary to direct the Director of Prosecution in this regard to bestow their attention in appointing sufficient number of public prosecutors to each and every Criminal Court in the State.
6. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Home Secretary as well as to the Director of Prosecution to bestow their attention for appointment of public prosecutors to the Courts, wherever deficiency is there.
With these observations, petition stands dismissed.
However, trial Court is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE SB