IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9664 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
Richard, S/o Jaison, Aged about 20 years, R/at No.131, 2nd Floor, Ananth Nair Road, Near Ganesh Clinic, Murphy Town, Halasur, Bangalore City-560 008.
(By Sri.Basavaraju.T.A., Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, By Halasur Police Station, Bangalore City-560 008.
High Court of Karnataka, At Bangalore-560 001. (Represented by Learned State Public Prosecutor) (By Smt.Divakar Maddur.M., HCGP) …Petitioner ..Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.270/2018 (Spl.C.C.No.744/2018) of Halasur.P.S., Bangalore for the offence p/u/s 363, 366, 344, 114 and 376 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 and 6 of POSCO Act.
This Criminal petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Petitioner along with two others is facing trial in Spl.CC.No.744/2018 on the file of LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 114, 376 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 on the basis of the charge sheet filed by respondent-police in Crime No.270/2018.
2. It is alleged that the petitioner enticed victim girl aged about 17 years to Chennai from lawful custody of her parents and cohabited with her in a lodge there from 15.08.2018 to 17.08.2018 and during such stay he committed repeated aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, this Court in Crl.P.No.7370/2018 has already granted bail to accused Nos.2 and 3, on parity principle, petitioner is also entitled for bail. He further submits that the victim girl not supported the case of the prosecution in the cross- examination before the trial Court.
4. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State opposes the petition on the ground that prima-facie there is sufficient material available against the petitioner. He further submits that accused Nos.2 and 3 stands on different footing, hence, parity ground does not apply.
5. As per the prosecution, accused Nos.2 and 3 i.e. mother and relative of petitioner abetted the petitioner to commit the alleged offence. Whereas, the charge-sheet records reveal that they had not supported the petitioner in his acts. Therefore, they were granted bail. The allegation of sexual assault is against the petitioner. Therefore, ground of parity does not apply.
6. The charge-sheet records, chief-examination of the victim girl and medical records, at this stage show that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed offence alleged against him.
7. Further in the chief-examination, victim girl supported the prosecution case. She was cross-examined later on two adjourned hearing dates. During the adjourned hearing dates, she turned hostile. Such circumstances show that there are chances of the petitioner tampering the witnesses.
8. Under the circumstances and having regard to the gravity of the offence it is not a fit case to grant the bail. Therefore, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SB/-