IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5587/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI.HARISH V., S/O VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT C/O ANAND’S SHEET HOUSE, OPPOSITE CHURCH, NEAR KERE, CHIKKAKAMMANAHALLI, HULIMAVU, BENGALURU – 560 076.
(BY SRI KRISHNA B.J., ADV.,) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU – 560 100.
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
(BY SRI HONNAPPA, HCGP.) ... PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION U/S.439 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.456/2017 OF PARAPPANNA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 366-A AND 376 OF IPC AND U/S 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT AND U/S 9 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT AND SEC.3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner is the sole accused in the charge sheet. It is specifically alleged that the victim girl aged 16 years was persuaded by the accused and abducted on 29.09.2017. He married her on 02.10.2017, stayed with her in a rented house and there he committed sexual act with her. He also took her to various places and had sexual intercourse with the victim girl. Ultimately, they were traced and case has been registered against the petitioner.
3. On careful perusal of entire materials produced before the Court, evidence has already been started and PW.1 is examined before the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that PW.1 has partially supported the case of the prosecution but materially has not supported the case of the prosecution. But it is not the stage where this Court can appreciate the evidence on record so as to draw any inference or to prejudice either party of the prosecution. It is the realm of the trial Court to appreciate the materials on record so as to pass appropriate judgment in a case. Now in the said facts and circumstances of the case, though the learned counsel submitted that since fourteen months the petitioner is in judicial custody that itself cannot be a ground when other materials are available on record which prima facie establishes the case.
5. Without expressing anything on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed. However, in view of the long incarceration of the petitioner, the trial court is hereby directed to expedite the trial itself and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj