RAJASHEKARA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Haveri in Spl.S.C.No.11/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 342, 109, 120(B) r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 4, 6, 12 and 17 of POCSO Act whereby his application for bail was rejected is before this Court seeking for enlargement on bail in the above matter.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the complainantmother had filed a complaint alleging that her daughter, aged about 17 years 5 months, who is studying in II year PUC in Government College, Hirekerur left home to go to college on 23.10.2018. However, she did not return. She later came to know from her elder daughter's husband that her daughter had gone along with one Rajashekar in a bike towards Shiralkoppa Village. The complainant has alleged that the accused had enticed the complainant's daughter. On enquiry, she came to know that accused had also left his house 23.10.2018 and had not returned. Subsequently on 26.10.2018, the above complaint was filed. The police arrested the petitioner on 06.11.2018 and since then, the petitioner is in judicial custody and a charge sheet has been field for the above offence and a case is now numbered as Spl.S.C.No.11/2019 and pending before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri. The petitioner had approached I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri and filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. which came to be rejected on 18.10.2019. In the said order, the trial Court has observed that the filing of the charge sheet itself prima facie proves the allegations against the accused. From the depositions of the victim, her mother, it is clear that accused had forcibly kidnapped the victim and committed sexual assaults on her against her will and wish. Hence, the trial court is of the opinion that if the accused were enlarged on bail he is likely to tamper with the prosecution witnesses and may abscond. In view thereof, the application for bail came to be rejected.

(3.) The petitioner is before this Court now seeking to be enlarged on bail contending that the trial has already commenced and all five material witnesses i.e., PWs-1 to 5 being the victim, mother, friend, brother-in-law of the victim and another relative respectively have already been examined and cross-examined.