1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5515 OF 2018
BETWEEN
Hrishikesh Sahoo,
S/o. Jagannath Sahoo,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at Flat No.306,
S.K.Residency, 6th Cross,
Kasuvanahalli,
Sarjapura,
Bengaluru-560035.
…Petitioner
(By Sri. Hashmath Pasha , Advocate)
AND
State of Karnataka by
Women Police Station,
East Zone,
Bangalore-560086.
…Respondent
(By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner
on bail in Crime No.19/2017 (Spl.C.C.No.356/2017) of
Women Police Station, East Zone, Bangalore for the
offence punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 323 and 377
of IPC and Section 5(M)(L) read with 6 of POCOS Act.
2
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day,
the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the petitioner’s counsel and the High Court
Government Pleader. The petitioner has approached this
court again seeking bail. He has been implicated of the
offences punishable under Section 498A, 376, 354, 506
IPC and Section 5(M)(L) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act.
The allegations are that the petitioner solicited unnatural
sexual intercourse from his wife and tried to molest his
daughter. The criminal petition No.2966/2018 filed by the
petitioner was dismissed by this court on 2nd July, 2018.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
accused no.2 and 3 who are the parents of the petitioner
have been discharged of the offence by this court in
Crl.RP.No.423/2018. The petitioner has been in custody
for the last one year seven months. The trial has not yet
commenced. The discharge of accused nos.2 and 3 gives
3
a ground to the petitioner to seek bail as the case framed
against all the accused stands on the structure of.
3. The High Court Government Pleader opposes the
petition by arguing that the petitioner has not made out
changed circumstances. The order passed by this court in
Crl.RP.No.423/2108 does not benefit the petitioner to
claim bail. Therefore petition has to be dismissed.
4. This court while disposing Crl.P.No.2966/2018
observed that while disposing Crl.P.No.5739/2017, all the
materials produced by the prosecution along with charge
sheet were dealt with at length and a change in
circumstance for grant of bail was not made out. It is also
difficult to accept the argument of the petitioner’s counsel
that discharge of accused no. 2 and 3 from the case can be
taken as a changed circumstance to release the petitioner
on bail. The allegations against parents of the petitioner
were that they abetted their son to commit crime; if they
were discharged for want of materials to frame charge
4
against them, it does not mean that the prosecution
cannot prove charges that stand independently against the
petitioner. Therefore, this cannot be a ground for granting
bail. However another aspect of the matter is that the
petitioner has been in custody for one year seven months.
No progress in the trial has been made. The age of the
petitioner is 45 years as on today. His wife and daughter
are living separately and therefore chances of they being
lured or intimated to depose against him cannot be
expected. Therefore bail can be granted. Hence the
following:
ORDER
(a) Petition is allowed.
(b) Petitioner shall be released on bail in connection
with Crime No. 19/2017 registered by Women Police
Station, East Zone Police Station, Bengaluru on his
executing a 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:
5
1) He shall regularly appear before the Court
during trial.
2) He shall not threaten the witnesses and
tamper with the prosecution evidence.
3) He shall not involve in any other criminal
case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sd
