IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6032/2017 BETWEEN:
ARUN S/O NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO.221, 3RD CROSS, VALENTINE SCHOOL ROAD, MARUTHI NAGAR, ITTUMADU, BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE-560 096.
(BY SRI.ASHOK KUMAR S R., ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANNAMANAKERE ACHU KATTU POLICE STATION BANGALORE-560 050 REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001.
(BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.174/2017 OF CHANNAMMANAKERE ACHU KATTU POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 363 AND 376 OF IPC AND U/S 9 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT, 2006 AND U/S 4 OF POCSO ACT, 2012 AND U/S 3(1)(xi) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.174/2017. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of IPC and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case that the mother of the victim girl gave the missing complaint before the Police stating that her first daughter, who is aged 17 years, on 06.05.2017 at about 6.00a.m. went out saying that she was going to temple and she did not come back and the complainant searched for her daughter here and there, but they did not found her. She had a doubt that the neighbour, who is the petitioner herein, might have taken her daughter and in that regard firstly the FIR came to be registered on the basis of the said information for the offence under Section 363 of IPC, subsequently, the other offences were included in the matter.
3. 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.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
5. The statement of the victim girl has been recorded by the Police on 16.05.2017. No doubt, in the said statement she has made the allegation that the petitioner was loving her since two years and he was sending the messages through the mobile, but she had not given any response to the said messages, even then the petitioner was insisting her to love him and stating that he will marry her, he used to take her to different places and when there were no other members in his house, he used to have the sexual intercourse with her. Her statement is also recorded before the Magistrate Court under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein she has stated on oath that she was loving the neighbour Arun, who is the petitioner herein, since two years. The parents were preparing to perform the marriage of the victim girl, for which she was not willing. Therefore, on 06.05.2017 morning at about 6.00a.m. she left the house and went to Bhadravathi along with the petitioner. It is further deposed that they married and herself and the petitioner stayed in the house of the mother-in-law of the petitioner, at that time they had sexual intercourse.
6. I have also perused the other charge sheet material. Looking to the very statement of the victim girl before the Police and the Magistrate Court, there is no consistency. The petitioner contended that he is innocent, not committed the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the case and he also undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed, hence, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner can be enlarged on bail.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail in connection with Crime No.174/2017 registered for the above said offences, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and has to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR