IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9633/2016 BETWEEN:
MAHADEVAPRASAD, S/O. SHIVARUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT HAKKALAPURA VILLAGE, TERAKANAMBI HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT-571 111 (BY SRI MANJUNATH N.D., ADVOCATE) AND … PETITIONER THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH TERAKANAMBI P.S., REP/BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT BENGALURU-560 001 (K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENALRGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.30/2016 OF TERAKAMBI P.S., CHAMARAJANAGAR, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SS.366(A), 376, 344 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 4, 6, 8, 12, 17 AND 18 OF POCSO ACT, 2012 AND SECTIONS 9, 10 AND11 OF CHILD MARRIAGE PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING FOR ORDERS ON THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The case of the prosecution is that on 11.03.2016 in the night at 8.45 p.m., the daughter of the complainant (victim girl) had gone out side the house at Hakkalapura Village to answer second call of nature. By that time accused persons 1, 2 and 3 came in a vehicle bearing No.KA-02/Z-2946 and kidnapped the victim girl and was taken to Arakalagudu of Hassan District and she was kept under the unlawful custody and accused No.1 took the house for lease belonging to CW15 and had forcible sexual intercourse on the victim girl without her consent, knowing fully well that she has not attained her majority. The case was registered against four accused persons, namely; Mahadeva Prasad, Shivarudrappa, Rathnamma and Shivaprasad for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 376, 344 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4, 6, 8, 12, 17 and 18 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of Child Marriage Prohibition Act.
2. A copy of order passed in Criminal Petition No.4631/2016 dated 20.09.2016 is available for perusal. The petitioner had sought for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., which was rejected and the present one is next application. No change of circumstances.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the earlier application liberty was granted to the petitioner to move second petition for bail before the trial Court after the evidence of the prosecution is commenced. It is observed that the evidence is yet to over. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the charge is framed, witnesses are not examined and the petitioner is in judicial custody.
In the above context of circumstances, considering nature and gravity of the offence, which is being charge sheeted against accused No.1 who is petitioner in this case and the matter being posted on 08.05.2017 for evidence, it is neither just nor appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner.
4. Accordingly, petition is rejected. However, the petitioner is given liberty to present bail petition after the examination of CW.1 and CW.2.
SBS* Sd/- JUDGE