Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1911 (KAR)

Mallikarjuna v. State Of Karnataka

2020-09-30

ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J. - This petition is filed by petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No.30/2019 (Spl.C.No.457/2019) registered for the offence punishable under Sections 5(M), 6, 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 376AB of IPC by Adugodi Police Station. 2. The prosecution case is that on the complaint filed by the mother of the victim, Adugodi Police have registered a case. On conducting the investigation, charge sheet is filed. The bail petition filed by the petitioner before the LIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Special Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-54) is rejected. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Perused the charge sheet records. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial has commenced in this case and the main prosecution witnesses viz., victim girls P.Ws.1 to 3, have not supported the prosecution case. Petitioner is poor and he is the main earning member of the family. Due to detention, he is put to hardship and injustice. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that there is ample evidence to prove the charges leveled against the petitioner-accused. The trial is not yet completed. In the event of granting bail, the petitioner is likely to cause threat to the remaining prosecution witnesses. 6. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the prosecution records and also the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3. None of these witnesses have turned hostile and the prosecution has not treated these witnesses as hostile. At this stage, it is needless to give any finding about the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 as the same is likely to cause prejudice to the petitioneraccused. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that some of the witnesses have already been examined and there would be delay in examining the remaining witnesses. 8. The reason assigned for seeking bail is not proper and justified. The mere fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded at an early date by itself would not be sufficient to enlarge the petitioner on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of causing threat to the witnesses. Thus, there are no valid grounds for granting bail. The mere fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded at an early date by itself would not be sufficient to enlarge the petitioner on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of causing threat to the witnesses. Thus, there are no valid grounds for granting bail. Hence, the petition is rejected.