IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8230/2017 BETWEEN:
Amruth Kumar S.P. S/o S.K.Papanna, Aged about 27 years, R/at Sunnaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobli, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara District-580 021. .. Petitioner ( By Sri A.N.Radha Krishna, Advocate ) AND:
State of Karnataka By Channapatna Rural Police, Ramanagara District, Rep.by the State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru-560 001. .. Respondent ( By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP ) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.224/2017 of Channapatna Rural Police Station, Ramanagara District, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of IPC, registered in respondent police station in Crime No.224/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that earlier the complainant had approached Mahila Police Station, Ramanagara, and there also, she made similar allegations. The learned counsel further submitted that the statement of the victim girl and the petitioner was also recorded in the said Mahila Police Station. He brought to the notice of this Court the said statement of the petitioner, as well as, victim girl. He also submitted that in the complaint, she mentions her age as 19 years. The complaint averments goes to show that they were both moving together to different places as mentioned in the complaint. Hence, the learned counsel submits that looking to these materials, the offence under Section 376 of IPC is not committed by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that on the date of filing of complaint, the complainant may be of the age of 19 years, but the alleged incident seems to have taken place three years earlier to filing of the complaint. Therefore, he made the submission that at that time, she was minor and below the age of 18 years. It is also the contention of the learned HCGP that looking to the medical records, the doctor who examined the victim girl opined that the hymen is torn. He also submits that the investigation is still going on and therefore, at this stage, petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record, so also the statement of the petitioner, as well as victim-girl stated to have been recorded before the Mahila Police in Crime No.164/2017.
6. Looking to the materials and the nature of the alleged offence under Section 376 of IPC and as submitted by learned HCGP that investigation is still going on, without making any comments on the merits of the matter at this stage, I am of the opinion that, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned Court immediately after completion of the investigation and filing of the final report, the Petition for the present is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE bk/