IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6794/2018 BETWEEN :
Ramu S/o Ramaiah Aged about 26 years R/at No.7, 10th Cross Near Sonal Garments Kaveri Nagara, Laggere, Bengaluru-560 053.
(By Sri Manjunath M.R., Advocate) AND :
… Petitioner The State of Karnataka by Rajagopal Nagar Police, Bengaluru City, Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru-560 001 … Respondent (By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.107/2018 of Rajagopal Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 4 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The present petition is filed by the accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him on bail in Crime No.107/2018 of Rajagopalanagara Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC; Section 6 of POCSO Act; and Section 4 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent- State.
3. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 clearly indicates that no allegations have been made about the sexual assault said to have been committed by the petitioner. There is inconsistency in the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. He further submitted that since eight months the petitioner is languishing behind the bars. Though the Court below has issued summons, no witnesses have been appeared. Already charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation or interrogation. He is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner took the minor victim girl and got married. Thereafter he had sexual assault against her will. She further submitted that there is corroboration of the medical evidence with the statement of the victim girl to show that she has been sexually assaulted by the petitioner. At the time of the alleged incident, she was minor and she was not in a position to give consent. She further stated that merely because the witnesses have not been examined, on that ground, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. As could be seen from the records, there are serious allegations made as against the petitioner stating that he took the minor girl and got married knowingly fully well that she was minor and thereafter he has committed aggravated sexual assault on her. Even the medical evidence also corroborates with the statement of the victim girl. Though in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., nothing has been stated, the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. clearly discloses about the overt acts of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, merely on the ground that the witnesses have not been examined, the petitioner cannot be released on bail. In that light, petitioner has not made out any case to release him on bail.
However, liberty is given to the petitioner to move the application for bail after examination of the witnesses.
The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *ck/-