District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in High-Profile POCSO Case, Cites Lack of Evidence as Reason

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru has granted bail to the accused No.3 in a high-profile case involving serious charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, among others. The decision was rendered by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar on October 13, 2023.

The case, Criminal Appeal No. 65/2023, had accused Paramashivaiah A J, who had been in custody for over a year, seeking bail in connection with Crime No.387/2022 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station. The charges against him included Sections 376(2)(n), 376(DA), 376(3), 201, 202, 506 r/w 34 and 37 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 5(L) and 6 of the POCSO Act, Section 3(f), and Section 7 of the Religious Institution Prevention of Misuse Act, 1988, and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015.

The court's decision to grant bail was grounded in its observation that the prosecution case lacked sufficient evidence and that the appellant's custody for over a year was unwarranted. The judgment stated, "Merely because the appellant – accused No.3 is an influential person, is not a ground to keep him in custody as a pre-trial punishment till conclusion of the trial, wherein the prosecution has to examine 84 witnesses and further proceedings are stayed at present."

The court also noted that the appellant, Paramashivaiah A J, claimed innocence and alleged conspiracy, questioning the delay in lodging the complaint and the alleged concealment of crucial facts.

This decision follows a series of legal battles and has garnered attention due to the serious nature of the charges and the subsequent grant of bail. The court's emphasis on the need for evidence and its assertion that custody should not be a pre-trial punishment has sparked discussions among legal experts and activists.

Date of Decision: October 13, 2023

Paramashivaiah A J  vs State of Karnataka

Latest Legal News