Dismissed

Sri Bharath v. Tulasigiri

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2021CRL.P/3520/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a bail petition in a POCSO case involving kidnapping and sexual assault. Holding that there is no prima facie case for bail despite over a year of custody, the court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within three months and ensured cooperation between prosecution and defence.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition was dismissed. The trial court is directed to complete the trial within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

Sri Bharath Vs Tulasigiri — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.P.No.3520/2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3520/2021

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI.BHARATH S/O TAN TANABAHADDUR AGED 38 YEARS R/AT: HEGGANAHALLI MAIN ROAD NEAR NISARGA SCHOOL HEGGANAHALLI BANGALORE – 560 091 … PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT.YASHODHA D N, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

TULASIGIRI S/O LATE LALITHARAJ AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT: 9^TH CROSS SRIGANDANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 091

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA RAJAGOPALANAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE – 560 058 … RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R2)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.17/2018 (SPL.C.C.NO.294/2018) REGISTERED BY RAJAGOPAL NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGLAURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363, 342, 366, 376 OF IPC AND SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT.

¶16

Crl.P.No.3520/2021

¶17

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Learned HCGP submits memo with the report of the Police Inspector of second respondent Police Station. According to the said report, notice on the first respondent is served. He is absent.

¶21

The petitioner is facing trial in Spl.C.C.No.294/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 342, 366, 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act on the basis of the charge sheet filed by the Rajgopalnagar Police.

¶22

The petitioner is a married person aged 38 years. It is alleged that he kidnapped victim girl aged 16 years and lodged her in different places between 09.01.2018 and 25.01.2018. It is further alleged that during such stay he committed repeated penetrative sexual assault on her.

¶23

The earlier bail petitions of the petitioner in Crl.P.Nos.5807/2018 and 3261/2020 were rejected by this Court on 12.12.2018 and 15.10.2020 considering

¶24

Crl.P.No.3520/2021

¶25

¶26

the merits of the case. The only changed circumstance the petitioner is alleging is that since 11.11.2019 no progress has taken place in the trial and he is anguishing in the jail without trial.

¶27

The records show that the victim girl was examined as PW2 in part on 11.11.2019. Admittedly, thereafter witness was not produced for evidence. It is submitted that due to covid-19 pandemic there was disruption in the Court proceedings, therefore, the witness could not be examined.

¶28

Though there is some truth in the said submission of the prosecution, at the same time at some interval during pandemic also, as per the Standard Operating Procedure recording of the witnesses was permitted more particularly in the cases where the accused are in judicial custody.

¶29

Learned HCGP submits that PW.2 is very much present in Bengaluru and the prosecution makes all endeavour to expedite the trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of

¶30

Crl.P.No.3520/2021

¶31

¶32

Delhi) and another¹ has held that in the cases involving heinous offence, the fact that the accused is in judicial custody for more than one year alone is not a relevant consideration to grant bail.

¶33

Under the circumstances, the trial Court can be directed to complete the trial in the time bound manner. At this stage it is not a fit case to grant bail. The petition is dismissed.

¶34

The trial Court is hereby directed to complete the trial within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The prosecution and the defence counsel both should cooperate for conducting the trial on day-today basis. Communicate the order to the trial

Court.

Sd/JUDGE

akc

1 ( 2018)12 SCC 129

Sri Bharath v. Tulasigiri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Bharath v. Tulasigiri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Geethabai Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Trevor Bull Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri H E Raghavendra Vs Sri Nagaraju

State of Karnataka Vs Thimmegowda

Dr. H P Shantha Kumar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Chethan @ Handi Chethu Vs State of Karnataka