IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5054/2017 BETWEEN:
DINESH RAI S/O LATE VISHWANATH RAI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT CHERAMBANE VILLAGE MADIKERI TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571201. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJESH.S., ADV FOR VIDYA SHANKAR RAI., ADV.) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BHAGAMANDALA POLICE STATION MADIKERI RURAL CIRCLE KODAGU DISTRICT-571201 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP.) THIS CRL.P. FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME No.64/2016 OF BHAGAMANDALA POLICE STATION, KODAGU, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 4 OF POCSO ACT.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner/accused on bail in the event of his arrest for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of POCSO Act, registered in respondent police station Crime No.64/2016.
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. Referring to the contents of the complaint and also the further statement of the complainant, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused made the submission that looking to the prosecution materials, there is no prima facie case as against the present petitioner to show his involvement in committing the alleged offences. He also referred to the medical records and made submission that even according to the doctor’s opinion, there is no signs of sexual intercourse. Hence, he submitted that medical records are not supporting the prosecution case. Learned counsel further made submission that there is a delay of 7 days in lodging the complaint. Hence, he submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Hon’ble Court and the petitioner may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that looking to the statement of the victim girl, she has given her age as 16 years in the complaint. Even the doctor who has examined the victim girl mentioned her age as 16 years in the medical records. He also submitted that looking to the complaint averments, she has clearly stated about the forcible sexual intercourse on her by the petitioner. He submitted that the matter is still under investigation and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be grant with anticipatory bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and medical records produced in the case on record.
6. Looking to the allegations made in the complaint, she has clearly stated that the petitioner is a driver, took the complainant to the said place. Then she was taken to the room No.106 in the lodge and during the night, he committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. The age of the complainant is mentioned as 16 years and the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, looking to the materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and as stated by the learned High Court Government Pleader, custodial interrogation of petitioner is necessary.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.