Manu J S @ Manu vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 6026 Kant

                            1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

                         BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.855 OF 2021

BETWEEN

MANU J S @ MANU,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
S/O SIDDAIAH,
R/O JODIKALLENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
CHIKKA NAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
TUMAKURU,
KARNATAKA - 572214.                       ... APPELLANT

[BY SRI.S.T.BIKKANNAVAR, ADVOCATE]

AND

  1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
     TIPTUR SUB-DIVISION, TUMKURU,
     (REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT
     GOVERNMENT PLEADER) - 572201.

  2. KUM.DIVYA,
     D/O MANJUNATHA,
     AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
     JODIKALLENAHALLI VILLAGE,
     KASABA HOBLI,
     CHIKKA NAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
     TUMAKURU - 572214
     REPRESENTED BY MAMATHA
     W/O MANJUNATH,
     JODIKALLENAHALLI VILLAGE,
     KASABA HOBLI,
                             2




     CHIKKA NAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
     TUMAKURU - 572214.                      ... RESPONDENTS

[BY SRI R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1,
 R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
                            ----

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2)
OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-B REFUSING BAIL DATED
27.05.2021 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.539/2021 BY LEARNED
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (FTSC-1)
TUMKURUR      FOR     THE     ALLEGED     OFFENCE    P/U/S
323,354A,363,376(3),504,506 OF IPC, SEC.6 AND 8 OF POCSO
ACT AND UNDER SEC.3(1)(W)(i)(ii),3(2)(va) OF ATROCITY ACT,
REGISTERED IN CR.NO.4/2021 BY CHIKKA NAYAKANAHALLI
POLICE, TUMKURU DISTRICT, PENDING TRIAL ON THE FILE OF
ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (FTSC-1) TUMKURU IN
SPL.C.NO.113/2021, AND KINDLY RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON
BAIL.

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the sole accused praying

to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, rejecting his application filed under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C., and consequently to enlarge him

on bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant,

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-

State and perused the material on record.

3. Respondent No.2/defacto complainant has

been served but there is no representation.

4. The submission of the learned counsel for

appellant is that the accused is in judicial custody from

13.01.2021 i.e., for over one year two months. He is not

required for any further investigation, since the charge

sheet is already filed. He submits that further detention

of the appellant will lead to pre-trial conviction. It is his

further submission that the victim's evidence is already

recorded that she has resiled from her earlier statement

given before the police etc. He therefore, seeks to set

aside the impugned order and enlarge the appellant on

bail.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader has

vehemently opposed grant of bail to the appellant and

sought to reject the appeal.

6. The appellant is facing trial in Special Case

No.113/2021 on the file of the Court of Additional District

and Sessions Judge (FTC-I), Tumkuru for offences

punishable under Sections 323, 354(A), 363, 376(3),

504 and 506 of IPC and Sections 6 and 8 of POCSO Act

and Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST (POA) Act,

2015. The incident is alleged to have taken place on

05.01.2021 at about 5.30 a.m. It is alleged that the

accused kidnapped the minor victim aged about 16 years

and took her to a secluded place, assaulted and abused

her and committed penetrative sexual assault by

threatening her etc.

7. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that

medical report and wound certificate reflected the

injuries on the body of the victim girl, which clearly

indicate that there is sexual violation on the victim girl.

In her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 of

Cr.P.C., the victim has clearly revealed about the forceful

abduction and aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

From the charge sheet material it cannot be said that

there is no prima facie case made out against the

appellant. Therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned

order passed by the trial Court in rejecting the prayer for

bail.

8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for

the appellant that the victim's evidence is already

recorded and she has resiled from her earlier statement.

However, the deposition of the victim is not produced

before the Court and on that ground, the accused has

not sought bail before the trial Court. In that view of the

matter liberty is reserved to the appellant to approach

the Sessions Court by filing a fresh petition under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C., under changed circumstances. If

any such application is filed the same shall be considered

and disposed of by the trial Court in accordance with law.

With the above observation, appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HB/-