The central legal point established in the judgment is that the lack of evidence from the victim girl to support the charges influenced the court's decision to grant bail to the accused.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

V Srishananda, J. - Heard Sri. Basavaraju T.A, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vinayaka V.S., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 -State.

2. Present petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

'WHEREFORE, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble court be pleased to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.24/2022 of Peresandra Police Station for an offence under Section 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(j)(ii), 5(L), 6 of POCSO Act and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child marriage Act - 2006, which is pending on the file of Hon'ble Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court-I (POCSO) at Chikkaballapur, Chikkaballapur District in Spl.S.C.No.42/2022, on such terms and conditions, in the ends of justice."

3. The petitioner is charge sheeted for offence punishable under Section 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(j)(ii), 5(L), 6 of POCSO Act and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

4. The accused is in custody and attempt made by him to obtain an order of grant of bail was turned down by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc. No.774/2022 dated 28.112022. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim girl is examined before court in Cr.No.24/2022 as CW-1 and in her examination-in-chief, she has not supported the case of the prosecution to any extent except stating about her date of birth. She has also deposed that when her examination has taken place before jurisdictional Magistrate, she has not deposed anything about the forcible sexual assault alleged to have been made by the petitioner against her.

6. The victim girl has been treated as hostile witness and cross-examined by the prosecution. Despite such detailed cross examination, no useful material is elicited in such cross-examination, which would establish the case of prosecution to any extent.

7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes for grant of anticipatory bail.

8. In the light of the rival contentions, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously.

9. Taking note of the fact that the victim girl has not deposed anything to attract the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC or under the provisions of POCSO Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the accused/petitioner in judicial custody is no longer warranted.

10. Accordingly, this Court passes the following:

ORDER

i. The Criminal Petition is allowed.

ii. Petitioner be directed to be enlarged on bail by executing a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

iii. Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

iv. Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.

v. Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of 'Chikkaballapura District' without prior permission.

If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of this bail order.

Ordered accordingly.