IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION No.3859/2017 BETWEEN:
ARUNA J., S/O JAIPAL, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO. 51/9, C/O RAJU HOUSE, 3RD CROSS, 2ND MAIN, NEAR VEENA SCHOOL, LAKSHMIDEVINAGARA, LAGGERE, BENGALURU – 560 096 (PRESENTLY IN JC) ... PETITIONER (BY MS. GEETA R. SHINDHE FOR M/S K. KARTHIKEYAN AND ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NANDINI LAYOUT P.S.
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 01.
...RESPONDENT (BY SHRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITONER, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR. NO. 235/2016 (S.C.NO. 232/2017) OF NANDINI LAYOUT P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 363, 376 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(2) (V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND SEC. 5(L) OF POCSO ACT.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner who has been arraigned as sole accused in crime No.235/2016 of Nandini Layout police, initially registered for the offence punishable under Section-363 of the Indian Penal Code, has preferred this petition under Section-439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to release the petitioner on bail.
2. The brief facts of the case is that:
Smt. Shivakala, the mother of the victim girl is the complainant. Kumari Anuja aged about 17 years, a student of 1st year P.U.C., on 09.12.2016 at about 3-30 p.m went out of the house stating that she will bring back her sister from school did not return to house. The complainant searched her daughter in their relatives, friend’s house and also in the college, but she could not find her daughter and hence, she approached the jurisdictional police who in turn registered a case U/S. 363 of the IPC.
During the investigation, the respondent-police found that victim girl was with accused-petitioner in Sangli of Maharastra State and brought them back and recorded the statement of the victim Kum: Anuja wherein she has stated that she belongs to Aadi Karnataka community and the accused belong to Goundars community. She has stated that on the afternoon of 09.12.2016 accused took her to Sangli, stating that he will marry her and forcibly married her and also had physical contact with her. On the basis of the statement of the victim, the respondent police incorporated the offences under section-376 of the IPC, Section 5(L) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and also Section (2) (v) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP., for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submission to the effect that looking to the statement of the victim and the prosecution material, there is no prima facie case made out against petitioner. Drawing attention of the Court to the statement of the victim, she submits that the victim girl herself voluntarily accompanied the petitioner and except her statement, there is no other material against the petitioner and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the said case. She further submits that even there is averments that there is a cohabitation took place between petitioner and the victim, there is no material to show as to when it took place and even the medical records will not support the case of the prosecution and since the charge sheet is already filed, petitioner may be enlarged on bail by imposing stringent conditions.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the offence alleged against the petitioner is not only under Section-376 IPC but also under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 as well as under Section 3 (2) of the Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that there is consent of the victim girl has no relevance, inasmuch as, the victim girl was a minor, aged 17 years, as on the date of the incident. The statement of the victim girl coupled with the medical records clearly establishes that there was a sexual inter course on the victim girl. He further submitted that the material collected during investigation clearly establishes prima facie case against the petitioner and hence, he prays for dismissal of the bail petition.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition and the entire charge sheet material.
7. The charge sheet material collected during investigation would reveal that as on the date of incident, the victim girl was a minor aged 17 years. Looking to the statement of the victim girl and also the other prosecution witnesses would clearly indicate that the accused-petitioner, on the pretext and assurance that he will marry the minor victim girl took her along with him to Sangli of Maharashtra State, got room on the rental basis and forcibly had physical contact with her. The statement of the owner of the house is in conformity with the statement of the victim. The victim, in her statement has categorically stated that the accused-petitioner had forcibly married her and thereafter had sexual intercourse with her. Looking to all these material, there is a prima facie case made out against the petitioner about his involvement in the crime. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner to enlarge him on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE VR