IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1183/2019 BETWEEN :
Ganesh S/o Eraiah Aged about 36 years Resident of Makonahalli Village Mudigere Taluk Chikkamagaluru District-577 101.
(By Sri B.Lethif, Advocate for Sri Girish B. Baladare, Advocate) AND :
State of Karnataka by Sub-Inspector of Police Mudigere Police Station, Mudigere, Chikkamagaluru District, Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., 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.177/2018 of Mudigere Police Station, Mudigere, Chikkamagaluru District, for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The present petition is filed by the accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him on bail in Crime No.177/2018 of Mudigere Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 of IPC, pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Mudigere in CC.No.2/2019.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent- State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that the victim- complainant is working as an Assistant in Anganawadi at Ghattadhalli, Mudigeri Taluk. The petitioner-accused used to take the husband of the complainant for timber work. The accused-petitioner got the mobile number of the complainant and subsequently he started frequently calling her over phone and used to tell that he likes her. He used to talk her in vulgar during the conversation over phone. On 30.10.2018, the husband of the complainant was taken by the petitioner for timber work. At about 10.30 a.m. petitioner went to Anganawadi where the complainant was working and sent the children outside and asked the complainant to give timber cutting machine which was in her house. At that time, the petitioner-accused closed her mouth tightly and committed rape on her in Anganawadi Centre, though she resisted. Petitioner also hugged the complainant and took the photo in his mobile. He threatened the complainant that in case she discloses the same to anybody, he would upload the said photo in facebook. Therefore, the complainant did not disclose the said incident for about two days. After four days of the alleged incident, she informed her husband and thereafter she lodged the complaint. On the basis of the same, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that there is a delay of 5 days in filing the complaint. Earlier to filing of the complaint, the husband of the complainant has filed a complaint and subsequently the police called the complainant and recorded her statement on 3.11.2018, wherein she has not stated about the alleged incident. The alleged incident is stated to have taken place on 30.10.2018. If really the alleged incident has taken place, definitely the complainant could have stated the said fact. It is further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that already charge sheet has been filed and hence the petitioner is not required for interrogation or investigation. The petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that there is ample material to show that the petitioner-accused has sexually assaulted the complainant and he has also taken the hugged photograph and threatened her and as such she did not disclose about the alleged incident at the first instance to her husband and in her statement. She further submitted that since from the beginning, the complainant was resisting and at the time of alleged incident also, she resisted and against her will, the accused-petitioner has committed rape on her. Therefore, the provisions of Sections 375 and 376 of IPC are attracted. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of the statement of victim, it clearly goes to show that the petitioner-accused has sexually assaulted the complainant and the act of the petitioner amounts to nothing, but a rape as contemplated under Sections 375 and 376 of IPC. When once the accused-petitioner has committed a serious offence of sexual assault on a woman, then under such circumstances, I feel that this is not a fit case to release the petitioner on bail.
Hence, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *ck/-