IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K N PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7650/2019 BETWEEN:
FAYAZ S/O RASHID R/AT PATTAPALLI VILLAGE V.KOTA TALUK CHITTOOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH – 715424. … PETITIONER (BY SRI.K SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BELLANDUR POLICE STATION BENGALURU – 560 013 REP. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001. ..RESPONDENT (BY SRI HONNAPPA, HCGP) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.167/2019 (SPLC.C.NO.995/2019) REGISTERED BY BELLANDURU POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIOSN 363, 343, 506, 354 AND 376 OF IPC AND SECTION 4 AND 6 POCSO ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard and perused the records.
2. The police have laid a charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 363, 343, 506, 354, 376 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act.
3. The brief facts of the case are that CW2 – victim girl is the daughter of CW1. They were all residing near Yallappa Temple of Halanayakahalli, Sarjapur Road, Bengaluru. It is stated that the petitioner is none other than the husband’s brother of CW1 and he was working as a driver in the house of CW1 and in this context it is said that the petitioner developed some intimacy with the victim girl by talking to her freely and it is alleged that he was also forcing her to love him and he was also threatening with dire consequences of killing her father and mother. In this context, she did not disclose the act of accused to her father and mother. As the petitioner was not doing his work properly, he was removed from the job. In this context, it is alleged that in order to take revenge against CW1 and her husband, the accused took the victim girl on 06.06.2017 to Hyderabad and then to Kalkal of Manoharbad Mandal, Medak District and kept her in confinement from 07.06.2019 to 14.06.2019 and therefore, he lavished her.
4. Though learned counsel contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated to consider the relationship between the accused and the victim, who is no other than the uncle of the victim girl and further, her age was shown to be 17 years 4 months as on the date of the incident. This is not a case of love affair and when the victim girl has stated that she was forcefully taken away and petitioner committed rape on her. At the initial stages, Court cannot draw any presumption unless it is proved contrary by the accused during the course of trial with reference to the intention of the accused as well as on the basis of the statement of the victim girl. Under the above said facts and circumstances, this is not the stage where the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE brn