The court denied bail based on the prima facie case established by evidence, highlighting the seriousness of the charges against the petitioner.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner being the sole accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.506 of 2023 of Suryanagar Police Station, pending in Spl.C.No.20 of 2024 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District (FTSC-III), Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 366A and 376 of Indian Penal Code (for short ' IPC ') and under Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short 'the POCSO Act'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Anjana Debanath.

2. Heard Sri K P Shravan Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:

R E A S O N S

4. The petitioner being the sole accused is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 13.11.2023 and since then he is in judicial custody. The mother of the victim has lodged the complaint alleging that the accused kidnapped the minor girl aged 16 years and committed sexual assault. As a result of which, he impregnated her and committed the offences as stated above. The investigation was undertaken and the final report was filed.

5. The materials on record discloses that the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned Magistrate, wherein, she has fully supported the case. It is also stated that the DNA sample collected from the victim as well as by the petitioner matched, which prima facie discloses commission of offences by the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that he is disputing the age of the victim and that the victim has voluntarily came along with him, cannot be accepted at this stage. The same may be taken as a defence before the Trial Court. Looking to the nature and seriousness of the offences, I am of the opinion that it is not safe to enlarge the petitioner on bail as the informant, victim and other material witnesses are to be examined before the Trial Court. Hence, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The Criminal Petition is dismissed.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to renew the prayer for bail before the Trial Court after examination of the material witnesses.

Liberty is reserved as prayed for.