(Prayer: This Crl.P is filed u/S 439 of Cr.PC (filed u/S 483 BNNS) praying to enlarge the petitioner on Bail in Cr.No.5/2024 of the Respondent Chikkaballapura Women P.S. for the offence p/u/S. 114, 324, 504, 366(A), 370(A), 370 A(1), 370 A (2), 376 (3) of IPC, and Sec. 4(2), 6, 17, 21 of Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012; Sec. 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015; Sec 3(1)(W), 3(2) (V) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015; Sec.4, 5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956, pending before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court -1 (POCSO), at Chikkaballapura Spl.SC. (POCSO) No.63 of 2024.)

CAV Judgment

1. This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.'), by the accused No.4 in Crime No.5/2024 registered by the Chikkaballapura Women's police station seeking to enlarge the petitioner-accused No.4 on bail.

2. Sri.Jagadish J.R., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and a resident of Andhra Pradesh. He has no connection with the family of the victim and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that the FIR and the charge sheet material do not indicate that the accused No.4 has committed the alleged offence. It is further submitted that there is delay in lodging the complaint and no reason is assigned for such enormous delay. It is also submitted that the story of the victim is self-contradictory, imaginary and spread over many months and the accused No.4 is in custody for more than 2 years and the trial has not yet commenced. Hence, he seeks to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

3. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State opposes the petition by contending that the accused No.4 has a vital role in the commission of crime and the charge sheet material prima facie indicates the commission of crime by the accused No.4. It is submitted that the alleged offences are heinous in nature and the victim being a minor, the accused No.4 is likely to commit similar offence on the victim. It is further submitted that the petitioner-accused No.4 is from the State of Andhra Pradesh and if the bail is granted, there is a likelihood that the petitioner may abscond. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the writ petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and meticulously perused the material available on record including the charge sheet material.

5. The respondent No.1 registered Crime No.5/2024 against Shivakumar and others for the offences punishable under Sections 114, 324, 504, 366A, 370, 370A, 370A(1), 370A(2), 376(2)(n), 376(3), 376(DA) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the offences punishable under Sections 4(2), 6, 17 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the offences punishable under Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 and the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956. The petitioner herein was arrayed as accused No.4.

6. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent No.2 who is the aunt of the victim, filed a written complaint. The charge sheet material indicates that on 22.01.2024, the victim who was aged about 14 years came crying to the home of the respondent No.2 and informed that the mother of the victim and the petitioner are residing in a rented house at Bengaluru wherein the accused No.1 used to visit. It is stated that the accused No.4 used to insist the victim to accompany the accused Nos.1 and 2, for which the victim used to refuse and the accused No.4 used to beat her with a belt and the mother of the victim i.e. accused No.5 used to support the accused No.4 and other accused. It is made out that the accused Nos.1 and 2 took the victim to a lodge situated near the Chikkaballapura Post Office and the accused Nos.1 and 2 committed sexual intercourse on the victim despite resistance and thereafter, the victim was left to her house and the mother of the victim has received money from the accused Nos.1 and 2. The charge sheet material also indicates that the commission of sexual intercourse on the victim on different occasions by the accused persons, was at the instance of the accused No.4.

7. The jurisdictional police have recorded the statement of the victim under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. on 25.01.2024 and also recorded the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. I have perused the statements recorded before the police as well as the learned Magistrate. The statement of the victim clearly implicates the accused No.4 for commission of the crime as stated in the charge sheet. The medical records of the victim also clearly demonstrate that the victim is a minor and there was sexual intercourse by accused at the instance of accused No.4. The charge sheet material and other material on record prima facie makes out a case against the accused No.4 for the commission of crime and the offences alleged are serious in nature, punishable with imprisonment for life. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner-accused No.4 is a resident of Andhra Pradesh and it would be difficult for securing his presence for the purpose of trial if he is enlarged on bail. Insofar as granting of bail to the accused No.6 by this Court is concerned, the same is on the basis of considering the victim's statement. In the case on hand, the victim has clearly stated before the police as well as the learned Magistrate about the involvement of the accused No.4 in the commission of crime. Hence, on the ground of parity, the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail.

8. The charge sheet material prima facie makes out a ground to believe that the accused No.4 has committed the offence and considering the nature, gravity of the offence and severity of the punishment for the charged offence, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to enlarge the accused No.4 on bail. It is already recorded supra that the accused No.4 is likely to flee away from the jurisdictional Court as he is a resident of Andhra Pradesh if he is enlarged on bail. Admittedly, the victim is aged about 14 years and there is a likelihood that the accused No.4 may yield pressure on the victim to depose falsely before the Court if he is enlarged on bail.

9. The prosecution is required to examine 47 witnesses and still the trial is not commenced. Considering Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act, the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible without any further delay.

10. For the aforementioned reasons, the present petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly rejected.