IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7584/2017 BETWEEN:
IRAK S.K S/O. KASHEM S.K, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 6TH CROSS, VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT, S.G. PALY, BANGALORE-560 024, PERMANENT ADDRESS, BADHPARA, MUJHYAMPUR, MURSHIDABAD, WEST BENGAL-742 189.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI. NOORPASHA MUDDABALLI., ADV.) AND STATE BY SUDDAGUNTE PALYA P.S, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.
(BY SRI. CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) ...RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.94/2017 OF SUDDAGUNTEPALYA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU AND S.C.NO.994/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 363, 366, 376 AND 343 OF IPC AND SECs.3 AND 4 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 AND SEC.3(1)(W) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATTROCITIES) ACT, 1989.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Sections 4 and 8 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(X)(XI) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered in respondent police station in Crime No.94/17.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the complaint averments is that firstly the mother of the victim girl lodged a missing complaint of her daughter. On the basis of that the case came to be registered for an offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC, but, subsequently, after recording the statement of the victim girl offences punishable under other Sections came to be added.
3. The submission that the present petitioner is the neighbourer to the work place where the victim girl, her mother and other family members were working and he used to talk to the victim girl. The allegation is that he kidnapped her and committed forcible sexual intercourse on her.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the order of the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the present petitioner.
6. Looking to the material placed by the prosecution and the records, the age of the victim girl was 16 years. The materials also goes to show prima- facie that during the investigation the statement of the owner of the room is recorded by the Investigating Officer wherein he has stated that the present petitioner asked for a room on rental basis and one girl was along with him. He gave the room to the petitioner at Rs.2,700/- per month. The petitioner was staying with the said girl in the same room. I have also perused the statement of the victim girl wherein she has stated that when she was in front of the house, the present petitioner called her, but she refused to go. However, he told her that he wanted to talk with her for some time and took her on his vehicle and thereafter in the said room he committed forcible sexual intercourse on her inspite of her protest. Perusal of the statement of the victim girl and the owner of the room and also the age of the victim girl, the prosecution at this stage has placed prima-facie material to show the involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged offence which is serious in nature. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
The petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-.