IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8870 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
Shivaraj @ Shiva, S/o. Papanna, Aged about 31 years, R/at No.83, New No.400, Behind SRS, 1st Stage, Peenya 1st Stage, Ashraya Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 057.
Own Address:
No.101, Mylasandra, R.V. College Post, Kengeri, Bengaluru – 560 036. …Petitioner (By Sri. Veeranna G. Tigadi, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, By RMC Yard P.S, Bengaluru.
Rep. by Special Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, SPP-II) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.172/2018 (SPL. C.C No.752/2018) of RMC Yard Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences p/u/s 3(1) (W), 3(2) (5) of SC/ ST (POA) Act, Sections 4, 5(L), 6(F) of POCSO Act and Sections 366, 376 of IPC.
This Criminal petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner has sought for his release on bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
2. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is laid against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 3(1) (W), 3(2) (5) of SC/ ST (POA) Act, Sections 4, 5(L), 6(F) of POCSO Act and Sections 366, 376 of IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the victim aged about 16 years is a member of the Scheduled Caste. She was working in Yeshwanthpur APMC Yard. The petitioner herein was an auto driver. He came in acquaintance with the petitioner and gradually developed intimacy with her and took her to Tirupathi and subjected her to sexual intercourse for about 30 days.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has not alleged any act of sexual intercourse, on the other hand, the averments made by her in her statement clearly indicate that her parents were advising her not to move with the petitioner since she was found in the company of the petitioner. Hence, a false complaint has been instituted against him.
5. Perused the Statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The said statement does not correspond to the other materials collected by the Investigating Agency. The learned SPP-II has opposed the petition and would submit that the petitioner was a married person having three daughters and he was acquainted with the victim even earlier to the incident and was aware of the age and caste of the victim. Under the said circumstances, he is not entitled to the relief of bail during the pendency of the trial.
6. Upon considering all the above facts and circumstances and having regard to the nature of the allegations and the gravity of offence and the age of the victim, in my view, it is not proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail until the examination of the victim before the trial Court.
Accordingly, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek for his release on bail after the examination of the victim before the trial Court, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SV/-