IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.6330/2018 BETWEEN:
SHAKTIVELU @ SATYAVELU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT P.E.S. COLLEGE, OPPOSITE TO VIVEKANANDA SCHOOL, ADJOINING TO VACATE SHED, HANUMANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU – 50. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MADANGOUDA N PATIL, ADV., - ABSENT) AND:
STATE BY GIRINAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, BENGALURU – 01. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.213/2016 OF GIRINAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 366(A), 344, 376, 504 AND SEC.5(1), 6 OF POCSO ACT 2012.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, to release him on bail in Cr.No.213/2016(Spl.C.C.No.32/2017) of Girinagar police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections. 366-A, 344, 376, 504 of IPC and Section 5(1) and 6 of POSCO Act.
2. The complaint allegations are that on 24/08/2016 at about, 1.00 p.m, petitioner/accused kidnapped the daughter of the complainant, who is a minor aged about 16 years. When the victim was traced, she discloses that the petitioner/accused took her to a rented house at Vellupuram, Tamilnadu State and there he married her. Thereafter, petitioner/accused used to sexually assault her from 29/08 /2016 to 17/10/2016. It is further alleged that the petitioner/accused by consuming alcohol harassing her physically and threatening her that if she disclosed this fact to anyone, she will die. On the basis of complaint, a case has been registered.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for the respondent- State.
4. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner/accused has been falsely implicated in this case and that there are derogatory statements made by the complainant and the victim and there is a delay in filing the complaint. The provisions of POCSO Act, are not applicable to the instant case, as the victim was 16 years, when the incident has occurred. Victim has already been examined as P.W.2 and there are contradictions and omissions in her evidence. The accused/petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by the Court and is ready to offer sureties.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that the materials produced before the court clearly go to show that the accused/petitioner took the victim under the guise of marrying her and by keeping her in a rented house, he sexually assaulted her. Even the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. clearly goes to show that against the will of the victim, petitioner/accused has sexually assaulted her. There is a prima facie case made out as against the petitioner/accused. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously examined the contents of the complaint and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. As could be seen from the records, there is a prima facie material to show that the petitioner/accused sexually assaulted the victim/minor girl by taking her to Tamilnadu. Victim has already been examined as P.W.2 and in her deposition, she has stated that the petitioner/accused has sexually assaulted and threatened her. Petitioner has involved in a serious offence. However, trial is going on. There is no good ground to release the petitioner/accused on bail.
8. Hence, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Msu