1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200933/2021

BETWEEN :

MEHBOOB

S/O MADARSAB NADAF

AGE : 21 YEARS, OCC :COOLIE

R/O YOGAPUR COLONY

VIJAYAPURA-586 102

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI R.S.LAGALI, ADVOCATE)

AND :

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

THROUGH THE SHO., WOMEN PS.,

VIJAYAPURA

REP. BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

KALABURAGI BENCH-585 103.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHERKAR, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER

ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.82/2019 OF VIJAYAPURA WOMEN

POLICE STATION, DIST. BIJAPUR, FOR THE OFFENCES

P/U/SEC.363, 344, 376(2)(I), 376(2)(n) OF IPC AND

U/SEC.5(L), 6 OF POCSO ACT, PENDING BEFORE ADDL.

SESSIONS JUDGE/FTSC-I, VIJAYAPURA AND ETC.

2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON OR ORDERS

THIS DAY, THE COURT (SETTING AT BENGALURU)

THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENC MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

This petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is a

successive bail application filed by the accused in Crime

No.82/2019 which is now pending in Special Case (POCSO)

No.46/2020 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge/FTSC-

I, Vijayapura for the offences punishable under Sections

363, 344, 376(20(i), 376(2)(n) of IPC. This Court by

considered order dated 12.04.2021 rejected the similar

request made by the accused/petitioner.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Even

though the matter is listed for orders for the first time

today, with the consent of both the parties, the matter is

taken up for final disposal and disposed of by this order.

3.

Sri

R.S.Lagali,

learned

counsel

for

the

accused/petitioner vehemently contended that even after

disposal of the bail petition by this Court by considered

order dated 12.04.2021, hardly any progress is shown by

3

the Special Court in the trial. He also contended that from

the date of arrest accused is in custody and therefore, this

Court may take into consideration the fact of the arrest of

the accused on and from 02.10.2020 and grant of bail as

there is no progress in the trial.

4.

Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader vehemently opposed the bail petition stating that

having regard to the other matters pending before the

Special Court, priority cannot be given only for the present

matter; mere pendency of the case and accused being in

custody on and from 02.10.2020, itself is not a ground for

granting bail to the accused and since his representation

has already been rejected. As such, the accused is bound

to continue in custody till completion of the trial. He also

contended that mere pendency of the bail petition and

accused being in custody is not a changed circumstance to

exercise power vested in the Court for grant of bail to the

accused in a successive bail petition and prayed for

rejection of the bail petition.

4

5.

Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties in detail and perusing the materials on record and

order dated 12.04.2021, this Court is of the considered

opinion that practically there is no changed circumstance

made out by the petitioner/accused except the fact that

there is no progress in the trial.

6.

This Court is not aware of total pendency of

the cases before the Special Court and Special Court.

However, the Courts are established only to deal with the

POCSO cases. Therefore, the cases which are pending

before the Special Court may likely be disposed of at an

early date. Nevertheless, having regard to the time line

prescribed in the POCSO Act itself, this matter require

precedence over the cases where the accused are already

on bail.

7.

Having regard to the time line and the fact that

the accused is in custody, it is expected that the trial Court

5

will dispose of the matters as early as possible on

d