Vijaykumar vs State of Karnatka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Almel Police in Sindhgi Taluk laid a charge sheet against the petitioner and another lady by name Smt. Jyothi before the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Vijaypur for the offence punishable under Section 109, 354(A) read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 17 and 18 of POCSO Act, 2012. The petitioner was arrested on 21.8.2014, since then he has been in judicial custody.

The brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that:

"The Principal of Kittur Rani Chennamma School, Almel, lodged an FIR on 19.08.2014 making allegations that the petitioner has been working in the Girls Hostel attached to the Kittur Rani Chennamma Residential School and he has been ill-treating, harassing and sexually exploiting the girl students in the said Institution. Another accused Smt. Jyothi has been giving assistance to the said person in order to facilitate the petitioner. The Police have investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet. They have recorded the statements of the girl students, Head Master and others during the course of investigation." 3. Smt. Jyothi, the other accused (A2) has approached this Court for grant of bail in Crl.P. No. 201058/2014 after the charge sheet being filed. This Court in the said case, after discussing in detail with regard to the statements recorded by the Police found that no specific allegations are made out as against the said accused, and therefore, granted bail to the said lady. On the ground of parity, this petitioner is before this Court for grant of bail.

Perused the order of the Sessions Court and the statements of the victim girls. The Sessions Court has observed on reading of the statements of the victim girls that prima facie there is direct allegation against this petitioner and it was further observed that every night, the petitioner used to choose a girl of his choice for exploitation. The statements are recorded through videography and CDs. and also produced along with the charge sheet. Therefore, on that ground, the bail petition came to be dismissed.

In order to ascertain the contents of the CDs. and videography, this Court has directed the learned High Court Government Pleader to produce those CDs. before this Court. The learned High Court Government Pleader has made available those CDs. before this Court and I have carefully witnessed the said CDs. In one CD, it contained the photographs of the petitioner along with some girls of the hostel except that no incriminating materials are available in the said CDs. (no indecency observed). Another CD containing videography shows that the petitioner and another boy playing together with the hostel girls in the open field and they are virtually teaching the girls how to play sports, in the open field etc., Except these two aspects, nothing is available in the said CDs. It is submitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader that no statement of the girls have been recorded through videography. He submitted that except these two CDs. no other CDs. are produced before the Court below. It appears, the Trial Court did not peruse these CDs. but however come to the conclusion that there is an allegation pointing against this petitioner.

I have once again re-looked into the charge sheet papers. The Police have recorded the statements of the alleged victim girls (C.Ws.22 to 56). The statements of all these witnesses are similar in nature. There is no change of any sort. They have categorically stated that petitioner has been exploiting the girls at his choice every day. But none of the girls have stated as to whether any one of them has been exploited by anybody. The question before this Court is that who was the girl actually exploited by the petitioner. No witness has stated that she was exploited by the accused at any point of time. Every student has stated that some students were called by the petitioner and he used to exploit her every day. Except that nothing has been stated in the statements.

The learned High Court Government Pleader submitted before this Court that the girls were shy in stating real facts and even parents are also not allowing the Police to record the statements in such a manner in order to degrade the character/morale of the said girls. Therefore, at this stage, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that there is a direct allegation by anybody against the petitioner herein for the offences alleged. However, it is left to the prosecution to establish during the course of the trial so as to ascertain who was the actual victim girl exploited by this petitioner. Even the other witnesses have also stated in the similar fashion that they received information that the accused has been exploiting the girls in the said hostel. But nobody has stated that who was the girl actually exploited out of the girls examined by the Police.

In the above said circumstances, I do not have any strong reasons to reject the bail petition at this stage. As the investigation has already been completed, there is no question of tampering with the prosecution witnesses or hampering the investigation. The offences are also not punishable with either death or imprisonment for life. To the maximum extent, they may be punishable with imprisonment for five years. The other co-accused has already released on bail. Further, the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the past six months. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Accordingly, the Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Spl. Case (POCSO) No. 23/2014 pending on the file of II Addl. Sessions Judge, Vijaypur, subject to the following conditions that,-

"(1) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court;

(2) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

(3) The petitioner shall not enter the premises of Kittur Rani Chennamma Residential School, Almel or the hostel for any reason, till the case is disposed off.

(4) The petitioner shall appear before the Sessions Court on all the future hearing dates unless prevented by any genuine cause.

(5) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission till the disposal of the case on merits.

(6) If any conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move the Sessions Court for cancellation of bail."