Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2346 OF 2025 BETWEEN:
1. GURURAJ, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O LALAPPA, R/O KILLARAHATTI B THANDA, UPPARA NANDI HAL POST, LINGASAGUR TALUK, RAICHUR-584125. PRESENTLY AT SAMRUDDI NILAYA, NEAR NIVEDANA HOMESTAY, NEAR PETROL BUNK, R 2 KULKANDA, KUKKE SUBRAMANYA, SULLIA TALUK, DK-574 239. Digitally signed …PETITIONER by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH (BY SRI. ARAVIND REDDY H., ADVOCATE) COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:
1. STATE BY
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SUBRAMANYA POLICE STATION, KUKKE SUBRAMANYA, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 238, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. -2-
2. SMT. LALITHA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, W/O NAGASUBRAMANYA BHAT, SRI DURGA NILAYA, BALPA VILLAGE, KADABA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 238. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P.YASHODA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.5040/2021 IN CR.NO.56/2021 OF SUBRAMANYA POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 354(a)(1), 376(2)(f)(i)(n), 384, 506, 109 AND SECTION 5(f)(I), 6, 8 AND 17 OF POCSO ACT, 2012, ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO IMPOSE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
This is the third round of application for successive bail petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that already 30 witnesses have been examined and remaining witnesses are yet to be examined. The learned counsel contend that the incident was taken place in 2017 and the complaint was given in 2021. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody from 2022 and it takes longer -3- time for completion of the trial as yet to examine the remaining witnesses.
2. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 State submits that already 30 witnesses have been examined and remaining witnesses are only official witnesses and the State is going to examine those official witnesses in future without causing any delay.
3. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 reiterates the grounds urged by the learned High Court Government Pleader.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties, the records discloses that earlier the bail was granted without giving any notice to the victim or to the parents of the victim and hence this Court cancelled the bail and the same was challenged before the Apex Court and the Apex Court also confirmed the order passed by this Court. However, liberty was given to the petitioner to approach the Trial Court for bail and the same was also filed and the Trial Court rejected the same. This Court vide order dated 23.08.2023 passed in Crl.P.No.5388/2023 once again rejected -4- the bail petition. This Court having considered the material available on record, in paragraph No.9 comes to the
conclusion that the victim and the victim’s mother have been
examined and this Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Trial Court in appreciating the evidence available on record. When such finding is given by this Court while rejecting the second round of bail petition, the question of granting bail by this Court does not arise. However, in view of the submission made by the learned High Court Government Pleader, the State is directed to examine the remaining official witnesses without seeking any adjournment and to dispose of the matter expeditiously.
5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is rejected. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24