IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
V Srishananda, J.
Venkataravana – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 9888 of 2022
Decided On : 16-03-2023
Bail Petition - Offences under POCSO Act - The court allowed the bail petition of the accused charged with offences under the POCSO Act, considering the victim's hostile testimony and the lack of evidence to proceed against the accused for the alleged offences.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged with offences under the POCSO Act and was facing trial. The victim turned hostile and did not provide any evidence supporting the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were no minimum ingredients available on record to proceed against the accused for the alleged offences, and therefore, the continuation of the accused in judicial custody was no longer warranted.
Issues: Hostile testimony of the victim, lack of evidence to proceed against the accused for the alleged offences
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the victim's hostile testimony and the lack of evidence as grounds to allow the bail petition and enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Final Decision: The bail petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to execute a personal bond and comply with certain conditions.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
V Srishananda, J. - Heard Sri Jagadisha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinayaka V.S., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State. Sri Raghavendra A.S., counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.
2. Petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., with the following prayer:
'Wherefore, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this bail petition and enlarge the petitioner on bail in Spl.S.C.No.147/2021 of respondent Gudibande police, for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 5 (J) (II), 5(L) and 6 of the POCSO Act, pending trial before the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, at Chikkaballapura, in the interest of justice and equity.'
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Accused/petitioner has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Section 5(J)(II), 5(L) POCSO Act and he is facing the trial. During the course of the trial, the victim girl has been examined and she has completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and did not depose anything about the forcible intercourse, even went to the extent of denying the acquaintance of the accused/petitioner.
4. Though the learned Special Public Prosecutor treated the victim girl as hostile witness and cross-examined in detail and confronting the statement said to have been made by her before the Investigating Officer, no useful material is elicited in such cross-examination, whereby there are no minimum ingredients available on record to proceed against the accused for the alleged offences. As such, the minimum ingredients to attract the offences alleged against the petitioner are not available on record.
5. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the accused in judicial custody is no longer warranted.
Accordingly, this Court passed the following:
ORDER
(1) The criminal petition is allowed.
(2) The Petitioner shall be enlarged on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-[Rupees one lakhs only] with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Judge.
(3) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper the prosecution evidence or hamper the investigation process in any manner.
(4) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Chikkaballapura District without prior permission.
(5) Petitioner shall attend the court regularly.
(6) The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences.
Violation of any of the above conditions, would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail.
Ordered accordingly.
The court considered the lack of evidence and the victim's hostile testimony in allowing the bail petition.
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.
The court's decision to grant bail with stringent conditions was influenced by the completion of the investigation, filing of the charge sheet, and the gravity of the alleged offence.
The victim girl's consent, being aged 16, cannot be treated as consent in the eye of law, and the court cannot hold a mini trial to ascertain the merits or demerits of the case at the bail stage.
Bail is a rule and rejection is an exception. The court must consider various factors, including the nature and seriousness of the offence, when deciding on bail in a non-bailable offence.
Regular bail will not be granted when the trial has already concluded and the case is pending at the stage of final arguments.
The court considered the changed circumstances and lack of evidence in favor of the prosecution in allowing the bail petition.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.