IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mrs. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8387/2018 BETWEEN:
Sri Mahendra S/o Mudduraju Aged about 24 years Residing at Thigalara Thota, Surabhi Layout, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 064. …Petitioner (By Sri. Asim Malik, Adv., for Sri Chandrashekar B., Adv.) AND:
State of Karnataka, By its Circle Inspector of Police Yelahanka Police Station, Bengaluru - 64.
…Respondent (By Sri. K.P. Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.237/2018 of Yelahanka Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 366(A) of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of POCSO Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Yelahanka Police have charge-sheeted the petitioner in Crime No.237/2018 of their police station for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 376, 366(A) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of POCSO Act.
2. It is alleged that the petitioner luring CW2, a minor girl aged 15 years, kidnapped her on 11.10.2018 from the lawful custody of her parents, took her to the house of CW5 and lodged her there till 14.10.2018. It is further alleged that during such co- habitation with the victim, the petitioner committed repetitive, aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no medical evidence to support the charge. He further submits that the petitioner is the sole bread winner for his mother who is suffering from high blood pressure and diabetic.
4. In support of his argument, learned counsel seeks to rely on the order of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sunil Mahadev Patil Vs. State of Maharastra, 2015 SCC On Line Bom 6204.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that there is incriminating material against the petitioner and if bail is granted, petitioner is likely to tamper the witnesses.
6. Statement of the victim girl before the Magistrate indicates that petitioner took her into his autorikshaw to Madhugiri and stayed with her in the house of CW5 up to 14.10.2018. The victim was traced on 14.10.2018 and medical examination was conducted on 15.10.2018. The findings on the genital examination are incriminating. Victim was 15 years old. In her further statement before the police, she has stated that she was subjected to forced sexual intercourse.
7. In Gajanand Agarwal Vs. State of Orissa & others, 2006 (12) SCC 131, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, orders of bail are not necessarily the orders of any precedent value.
8. Petitioner has not produced any material to show that he is the only issue of his mother and he has no other siblings. He was an autorikshwa driver. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that he was not aware of the implication of his acts while taking away the minor girl from the custody of the parents. Under these circumstances, this Court has not persuaded to follow the orders of the Bombay High Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Having regard to the material on record and the nature of offence, it is not a fit case to grant bail. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE psg*