IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9669/2018 BETWEEN:
Mr.C.Chandrakumar, S/o Mr.Channappa, Aged 40 years, R/of No.24, 9th Cross, Agrahara Dasarahalli, Bengaluru – 560057.
(By Sri.N.Shivakumar, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, By Nandini Layout Police, Bengaluru, Through the Public Prosecutor, High court Buildings, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
(By Sri.M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) ...Petitioner ... Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.517/2018 of Nandini Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 354D, 506, 376, 448 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to release him on bail in Crime No.517/2018 of Nandini Layout Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 354D, 506, 376 and 448 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that the victim/complainant is working as Home Guard at Jnanabharathi University Police Station. It is further alleged that on 02.11.2018, when she was returning towards her house after attending her duty, the petitioner/accused came and asked her that he would drop her to the house. After 2 days, the petitioner/accused started offering juice and used to meet her when she was on duty and use to talk to her casually. It is further alleged that after some days petitioner/accused started misbehaving with the complainant by telling that he want her and he is ready to accommodate her in separate residence and use to make phone calls to her mobile frequently. It is further alleged that on 16.11.2018, at about 8.15 p.m., after finishing her second shift when she came near Jnanabharathi University petitioner/accused dragged and hugged her and also tried to touch her waist. She escaped and thereafter the said fact was also informed to the Police Officers. They called both the complainant and the petitioner/accused, enquired about the said facts and both were advised. It is further alleged that on the next day, after finishing her duty, she returned towards her house at about 9.05 p.m., and when she was about to change her dress, she heard knocking sound of the main door, under the impression that her husband has arrived she opened the door and she found the petitioner/accused infront of her house. Then he immediately rushed inside the house and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and thereafter, he poured water on her and threw Rs.500/- and told that he is a Policeman and she cannot do anything and he went away from that place. Thereafter, the said victim/complainant informed to her friends and later on complaint came to be filed.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed and subsequent statement of the victim has been recorded and it clearly reveals the inconsistency in the contents of the complaint and further statements of the victim. The statement of the victim/complainant further reveal has the alleged incident had taken place on 17.11.2018 and subsequently in other statements she has stated that the alleged incident had taken place on 15.11.2018. In her statement given under Section 164, she has given an entirely different version. He further submitted that the higher officers of the victim/complainant has given a letter stating that from 15.11.2018 to 17.11.2018 the victim was on duty from 2.00 p.m. to night 9.00 p.m. at Jnanabharathi Campus. This would clearly indicate that no such incident has been taken place at 9.05 p.m. on 16.11.2018 and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime. He further submitted that the call details and other CCTV footages have been also collected during the course of the investigation. In that also it clearly indicates that the petitioner/accused has not at all visited the house of the victim as alleged in the complaint. He also further submits that the petitioner/accused has received so many awards for having bravely and efficiently discharging his duties and he is not at all involved in the alleged crime. He is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer surety. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused on bail.
5. Per Contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued that the petitioner/accused, has misbehaved with her and on the date of alleged incident he went to the house of the victim and sexually assaulted. The colleagues of the victim are also specifically stated about the misbehavior of the petitioner/accused with the victim. He further submits that the medical records also corroborated with the statement of the victim/complainant. He further submits that there is a sign of recent sexual assault as per the opinion of the Doctor. All these material prima- facie shows involvement of the petitioner/accused in the crime. That no lenient view could be shown to the petitioner who is Police official. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of the entire charge sheet material and the contents of the complaint and further statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C would reveal that there is no consistency in her statement. She went on changing the time and date of the incident. Be that as may, even the higher officials of the victim/complainant has also given a letter stating that from 15.11.2018 to 17.11.2018 she has been posted on duty from 2.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. at Jnanabharathi Campus. So that she was on duty during the alleged date and time of the incident. This would falsify the incident. The averments made in the complaint reveals that on the date of incident she has left the office at about 7.00 p.m. and she has reached the house at 9.15 p.m. When her superiors has stated that she was on duty upto 9.00 p.m., the victim reaching to her house at 9.05 p.m. would create some suspicion. The medical opinion also is not in consonance with the statement of the victim/complainant. Under the said facts and circumstances, I feel that there are some doubts in the case of the prosecution. Apart form that, already investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. As the petitioner/accused is working as a Police Head Constable question of his fleeing away from the justice and absconding does not arise. Looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the petitioner/accused has made out a case to release him on bail.
8. In the light of the discussions made supra, petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail in Crime No.517/2018 of Nandini Layout Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 354D, 506, 376 and 448 of IPC subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
2. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission.
3. He shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 1st of every month between 10.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., before the concerned police station, till the trial is concluded.
4. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
5. He shall regularly appear before the trial Court for trial, without fail.
Sd/- JUDGE NS