Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 360 (KAR)

Rajashekara v. State Of Karnataka

2020-02-06

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Haveri in Spl.S.C.No.11/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 342, 109, 120(B) r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 4, 6, 12 and 17 of POCSO Act whereby his application for bail was rejected is before this Court seeking for enlargement on bail in the above matter. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant-mother had filed a complaint alleging that her daughter, aged about 17 years 5 months, who is studying in II year PUC in Government College, Hirekerur left home to go to college on 23.10.2018. However, she did not return. She later came to know from her elder daughters husband that her daughter had gone along with one Rajashekar in a bike towards Shiralkoppa Village. The complainant has alleged that the accused had enticed the complainants daughter. On enquiry, she came to know that accused had also left his house 23.10.2018 and had not returned. Subsequently on 26.10.2018, the above complaint was filed. The police arrested the petitioner on 06.11.2018 and since then, the petitioner is in judicial custody and a charge sheet has been field for the above offence and a case is now numbered as Spl.S.C.No.11/2019 and pending before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri. The petitioner had approached I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri and filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. which came to be rejected on 18.10.2019. In the said order, the trial Court has observed that the filing of the charge sheet itself prima facie proves the allegations against the accused. From the depositions of the victim, her mother, it is clear that accused had forcibly kidnapped the victim and committed sexual assaults on her against her will and wish. Hence, the trial court is of the opinion that if the accused were enlarged on bail he is likely to tamper with the prosecution witnesses and may abscond. In view thereof, the application for bail came to be rejected. 3. The petitioner is before this Court now seeking to be enlarged on bail contending that the trial has already commenced and all five material witnesses i.e., PWs-1 to 5 being the victim, mother, friend, brother-in-law of the victim and another relative respectively have already been examined and cross-examined. 4. 3. The petitioner is before this Court now seeking to be enlarged on bail contending that the trial has already commenced and all five material witnesses i.e., PWs-1 to 5 being the victim, mother, friend, brother-in-law of the victim and another relative respectively have already been examined and cross-examined. 4. It is also contended that the appreciation of the evidence as also the facts and circumstances by the trial court is not proper. In that both PW-1 - victim and PW-2 - mother of the victim have not made any allegation as regards the victim having been forcibly taken by the accused. PW-3 - friend of the victim has denied the incident. PW-4 - brother-in-law has also not made any allegation as regards any forcible act. 5. The petitioner further contends that the petitioner has been in judicial custody from 06.11.2018, investigation is concluded, charge sheet is filed, evidence of the material witnesses are recorded. Therefore, there is no possibility of the petitioner tampering with any witnesses. It is further contended that the material witnesses having not supported the case of the complainant, the petitioner ought to be enlarged on bail. 6. Having considered the complaint, the statement of witnesses, the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and the order of the trial court, it is seen that the victim herself has stated that the victim and the accused knew each other and there was discussion between them as regards they eloping in furtherance thereof. It is agreed between the victim and the accused that the victim will make an excuse of going to college and thereafter, leaving with the accused. The evidence of the mother also does not indicate any forcible act committed by the accused. There is also evidence on record that there were discussion as regards the marriage between the accused and the victim. 7. In the above circumstances, the evidence of material witnesses having already been concluded and they having turned hostile, there would be no purpose in the accused continued to be retained in the judicial custody. Accordingly, the following: ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. 7. In the above circumstances, the evidence of material witnesses having already been concluded and they having turned hostile, there would be no purpose in the accused continued to be retained in the judicial custody. Accordingly, the following: ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Spl.S.C.No.11/2019 (Crime No.215/2018) pending on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri for the alleged offences, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court; ii. The petitioner shall appear before the Committal Court on every date of hearing; iii. The petitioner shall co-operate in the conclusion of the trial in the said proceedings. iv. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witness/s in any manner. v. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission, till the case registered against him is disposed of.