Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Sri Rajesh B vs The State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|15 October, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6739/2019 BETWEEN:
Sri Rajesh B S/o Mallikarjun Aged about 28 years R/at Sole Sports Raja Reddy Layout Kaikondarahalli Sarjapura Road Bengaluru-560 035 Permanent Resident of Itagikote village, Itagi Post Hoovina Hadagali Taluk Bellary District …Petitioner (By Sri Rudrappa P, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka by Varthur Police Station Bengaluru Rural District Bengaluru – 560 087 Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings Bengaluru – 560 001 (By Sri Rohith B J, HCGP) …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.210/2019 of Varthur Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Section 354A of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. Learned HCGP submits that notice issued to the complainant has been served. Complainant remained absent and unrepresented.
3. The main allegation against the petitioner is that he has been working as a Coach with reference to working in Tennis ground which is situated just behind the residence of the complainant i.e., behind Prestige Lakeside Habitat Apartment, Gunjur, Bengaluru. The victim girl who was aged about 9+ years studying in 4th standard joined tennis classes in the month of April 2019. The tennis class was run by the District Sports Academy and owned by one Anil. On the previous day of the incident, that was on 15.08.2019, the complainant has dropped his daughter (victim) to tennis class around 4.15pm and at about 4.37pm rain suddenly started. The complainant and his wife went down from basement and saw one coach standing near basement entry area and their daughter also came towards them crying and said that the petitioner has kissed her and attempted to drag her to dark area in the basement. Immediately the complainant called the owner of the said institute Anil to come at tennis ground but Rajesh was not there. It is alleged that he persuaded the said girl with an assurance to give a chocolate and also told her not to disclose the said act done by him to anybody. On the above said allegations complaint came to be lodged, a case came to be registered in Crime No.210/2019 for the offence under Section 354A of IPC and also Section 12 of POCSO Act.
4. Looking to the nature of allegations and facts of the case, though the allegations are serious, but considering the gravity of the offence and the punishment prescribed that the offence under Section 12 of POCSO Act is non bailable and it is punishable with maximum punishment of 3 years, whereas Section 354(A) is bailable in nature. Under the above facts as the petitioner was already arrested on 17.08.2019 and he has been in judicial custody, in my opinion in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail on stringent conditions. Hence the following:
O R D E R The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in Cr.No.210/2019 of Varthur Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 354A of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act, subject to the following conditions:
i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
ii. The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii. The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the court for any genuine cause.
iv. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the court till the case registered against him is disposed of.
v. The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in fifteen days i.e., on any Sunday between 10.00 am and 5.00 p.m., before the Investigating Officer for a period of two months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
Kmv/-
Sd/- JUDGE
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sri Rajesh B vs The State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
15 October, 2019
Judges
  • K N Phaneendra