Karnataka High Court
Sri Vamshi @ Vamshi Krishna, vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1639 OF 2018
BETWEEN
Sri. Vamshi @ Vamshi Krishna
s/o Veeresh @ Salappa
aged about 19 years
r/at.No.1, 1st Main Road
1st Cross, J.J.Nagar
Bangalore - 560078.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. B.V.Pinto, Advocate)
AND
The State of Karnataka
By J.J.Nagar Police Station,
By State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru-560001.
...Respondent
(By Sri. K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.130/2017 of Jagajeevanram Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru and in Spl.C.C.No.343/2017 pending on the file
of LIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-55),
2
sitting in the Child Friendly Court, Bengaluru Urban District
for the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC and
Section 4, 6, 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day,
the court made the following:
ORDER
This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is facing trail in Spl.C.C.No.343/2017 pending on the file of Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Child Friendly Court (CCH-55), Bengaluru. He is implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 4,6,8 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 376 of IPC.
2. The allegations made against the petitioner are that on 15.05.2017 at about 10.00 p.m., the petitioner took the complainant's daughter aged about 5 years to his house and sexually abused the child.
3
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues by referring to the medical report that the doctor who examined the victim girl soon after lodging of the complaint gave a opinion that the victim girl is not used to the act of sexual intercourse and that he also did not find the signs of recent sexual activity. Then he refers to FSL report and argues that even this report has come negative. Therefore complaint made against the petitioner is false one. Moreover two prime witnesses who have been examined in the court have not at all spoken anything against the petitioner. Since these two witnesses have been examined, there are no chances that the petitioner is likely to influence the other witnesses. The petitioner has been in custody for the last one year and the trail may take some more time to get concluded. Hence the petitioner can be enlarged on bail. On the other hand the High Court Government Pleader submits that just because two witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, it cannot be said that the other witnesses do not support. The two witnesses who have been examined are child 4 witnesses. The answers given by them to the preliminary questions put to them show very well that they are competent witnesses . This evidence may or may not be believed by the court. The medical report in fact supports the prosecution case because the doctor has noticed redness over labia minora. The mother has to be examined. There are no grounds to grant bail.
4. Usually when the trial is pending, after conclusion of recording of evidence of two or three witnesses, the accused would move for bail if the witnesses turn hostile. Whether to grant bail or not after examination of some of the witnesses depends on facts and circumstances. Just because some witnesses turn hostile, it cannot be a ground for granting bail. However this cannot be a yardstick always for denying the bail. Now in this case PW-1 is the victim girl. Preliminary questions were put to her and there afterwards she was subjected to examination. If the answers given by the witnesses are seen, it appears that she was not able to comprehend the questions put to her. 5 The other witness is a boy of 8 years. He too has not supported the prosecution case. According to prosecution, PW-1 and 2 are the prime witnesses. The trial court can appreciate their evidence. Merely because two witnesses have turned hostile it cannot be said that the other witnesses do not support. But at this stage what is found is that in view of examination of prime witnesses having been completed, the possibility of other witnesses being influenced by the petitioner can be safely ruled out. Hence the following order:
ORDER
(a) Petition is allowed.
(b) Petitioner, who is facing trial in Spl.C.C.No.343/2017, on the file of LIV Additional City Civil and Session Judge (CCH-55), Bengaluru shall be released on bail on his executing bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioner is also subjected to the following conditions: 6
1) He shall regularly appear before the Court during trial.
2) He shall not threaten the witnesses and tamper with the prosecution evidence.
Sd/-
JUDGE sd