IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4138/2019 BETWEEN:
Chethan, S/o. Sathish, Aged about 25 years, R/at: Habbanakuppe Village, Hunsuru Taluk, Mysuru District – 575 013. …Petitioner (By Sri. B. Lethif, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, By Hunsur Rural Police Station, Mysuru District, Rep. by SPP, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. … Respondent (By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.602/2017 (S.C.No.38/2018) of Hunsur Rural P.S., Mysuru, for the offence punishable under Section 376(2) (i), 376(2)(l), 506 of IPC and Section 5(m) and 6 of POCSO Act.
This Criminal petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Addl. SPP for respondent.
2. Based on the observations made by this Court in its order dated 22.06.2018 in Crl.P.No.2487/2018, petitioner moved an application before the trial Court for bail after examination of the prosecutrix. However, the trial Court by the impugned order dated 23.02.2019 in Crl.Mis.No.243/2019 dismissed the said application.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence of the prosecutrix does not indicate any traces of sexual assault on the prosecutrix. Moreover, there being no traces of sexual act, custody of the petitioner is not required to be extended. He further submits that the petitioner’s sister got engaged on 13.06.2019 and the presence of the petitioner is very much required for the marriage of his sister and on that ground he prays for release of the petitioner on bail.
4. The submission is opposed by the learned Addl.
SPP appearing for the respondent on the ground that the facts narrated in the impugned order clearly discloses the gravity of the offence and therefore, petitioner is not entitled for order of bail until conclusion of trial.
5. On going through the impugned order and the observations made in the earlier order passed by this Court, I find that having regard to the gravity and nature of the offence, the trial Court has rejected the bail application. I do not find any acceptable reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial judge at this juncture. However, having regard to the relationship between the parties and the circumstances in which the alleged offence has taken place, in my view, it is necessary to direct the trial Court to conclude the trial within three months from the date of communication of this order. In the meanwhile, if the marriage of petitioner’s sister is fixed, on production of necessary proof thereof, trail Court shall enlarge the petitioner on temporary bail for a period of 15 days on such terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the trial Court.
With these observations, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SV