IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7433/2017 BETWEEN:
KADAPPALA ANJINAPPA @ VADDA HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE DURUGAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O ANAJIGERE VILLAGE HARAPANAHALLI TALUK – 583 131 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI.HANUMANTHAPPA A, ADV.,) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ARASIKERE POLICE HARAPANAHALLI TALUK REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 01.
...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.3/2017 (S.C.NO.55/2017) OF ARASIKERE P.S., DAVANAGERE DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 366, 376, 506 OF IPC AND SEC. 6 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC registered in respondent – police station Crime No.3/2017. But later on offence under Sections 366, 376 and 506 of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, were also inserted in the said case.
2. The complainant is the father of the victim girl.
He has stated that the present petitioner was following his daughter and he was moving in a suspicious manner. Therefore, complainant advised the petitioner not to do like that. On 9.1.2017, when the daughter of the complainant went to answer nature call, she did not come back, then they searched in the house, she was not traced out. Hence, the complainant had a doubt on the petitioner that he has kidnapped her daughter and lodged the complaint against the present petitioner.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that looking to the prosecution material itself, the doctor who examined the victim girl opined that she is above the age of 17-20 years as per the radiology report. He submitted that now the investigation of the case is completed, charge sheet is also filed. By imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be admitted to regular bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, opposed the petition and submitted that the victim girl has stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., that she was aged 14 years. He also further made the submission that Doctor who examined the victim girl is of the opinion that based on the examination of FSL report there are signs of vaginal intercourse. The Doctor also opined that she is in between the age of 16-17 years. Further the Doctor opined that hymen was not intact. Therefore, looking to the materials placed on record, the allegations in the complaint, so also the medical report coupled with statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the prosecution placed the prima-facie material to show the involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offences. The alleged offence under Section 376 of IPC is serious in nature. Therefore, it is not a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
However, looking to the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since from the date of arrest, the petitioner is in custody. The learned Sessions Judge is hereby directed to take up the matter on priority basis and dispose of the case as early as possible.
Sd/- JUDGE VMB