Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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