Dismissed

Bharath Naika v. State by Konanur Police Station

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2022CRL.P/6254/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a third bail petition filed by an accused charged with sexual assault under the POCSO Act and IPC. Despite delayed recording of the minor victim's evidence, the court held bail was not appropriate given the prima facie case and potential to influence the victim, instructing the trial court to expedite the evidence recording.

What did the court decide?

Petition to enlarge the petitioner on bail is dismissed. The petitioner can file a fresh petition after the victim's evidence is recorded.

Bharath Naika Vs State by Konanur Police… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6254/2022

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

BHARATH NAIKA S/O RANGASWAMY NAIKA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O CHIKKAHALLI VILLAGE, KONANUR HOBLI, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 130.

¶8

… PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. MURTHY D.L, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE BY KONANUR POLICE STATION, ARAKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

SMT. SUMITHRA, W/O. KUMARA, CHIKKAVALLI VILLAGE, KONANUR HOBLI, ARAKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 130.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP FOR R1)

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.214/2020 OF KONANUR POLICE STATION, HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 363, 376 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1 AT HASSAN IN SPL.C.NO.310/2020.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING/PHYSICAL HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This is a third successive bail petition filed by the petitioner praying to enlarge him on bail in Cr.No.214/2020 registered at Konanur Police Station, Hassan, now pending

¶19

on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC1, Hassan in Spl.Case.No.310/2021.

¶20

The petitioner is the sole accused. Charge sheet is filed against him for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 376 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act 2012.

¶21

Criminal petition No.206/2021 preferred by the

¶22

petitioner was dismissed as not pressed on 02.02.2021

¶23

¶24

directing the learned Sessions Judge to make all endeavor to record the evidence of the victim girl as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the relevant provisions of POCSO Act, 2012.

¶25

Criminal petition No.1455/2022 preferred by the petitioner was disposed of on 04.03.2022, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition before the Sessions Court since the evidence of the victim girl was not recorded. Further, a direction was issued to the learned Sessions Judge to dispose of the petition in accordance with law and to make all endeavor to record the evidence of the victim girl and also to assign reasons for the delay, if the evidence was not recorded.

¶26

The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the bail petition filed by the petitioner in Spl.Case No. 310/2020 vide order dated 21.06.2022.

¶27

Since, the evidence of the victim girl was not

¶28

recorded, this Court sought for an explanation from the

¶29

¶30

learned Sessions Court for the delay, as there was no reference to it in its order. The learned Sessions Judge has explained the delay in recording the victim's evidence vide letter dated 01.08.2022. It is stated that on 15.06.2022, the victim and her mother were present before the Court and the victim submitted that she opposes grant of bail to the accused. Further, it is stated that summons was issued to CW1 with an object to record the evidence of the victim with a misconception that CW1 is the victim. Since CW1 is the mother of the victim, who attended the Court on 11.07.2022 and prayed time to produce her daughter she was bound over and summons was issued to CW-2 - victim and the next date was fixed on 18.08.2022.

¶31

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 18.08.2022 the victim did not appear before the Court to give evidence. He therefore submits that the petitioner who is languishing in jail since 28.09.2020 may be released on bail by imposing conditions.

¶32

¶33

On the other hand, learned HCGP has opposed grant of bail to the petitioner contending that already this Court has rejected prayer of the petitioner as the offence committed by the petitioner is heinous in nature and there is a prima facie case against him.

¶34

As per the charge sheet material, the date of

¶35

birth of the victim is 10.01.2004. The victim was therefore

¶36

a minor at the time of the incident in question. Her statement reveal that the petitioner has committed penetrative sexual intercourse on her. Even though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

¶37

there was a love affair between the victim and the petitioner and victim herself accompanied the petitioner, since victim is a minor, the said contention is not a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. As per the explanation submitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Court is making all endeavor to record the evidence of the victim girl. Therefore, at this stage, this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. There are chances of influencing or

¶38

¶39

threatening the victim by the petitioner, in the event of his release. However, the trial Court shall record the victim's evidence without further delay. It is open for the petitioner to file a fresh petition after the victim's evidence is recorded.

¶40

With the above observations, the petition is

¶41

dismissed.

¶42

A copy of this order shall be communicated to the jurisdictional Court, forthwith.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Bharath Naika v. State by Konanur Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharath Naika v. State by Konanur Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Rehaman @ Rehmathulla Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K M Nagaraja Vs M S Nagabhushana

Mr.Hussainabba Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandrashekar @ Keerthi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Somashekara Reddy Vs Smt.Nalina Lakshman Reddy

Mr Ratnakar T Suvarna Vs Oswald Rodrigues