Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Kiran vs State By Siddapura Police Station

High Court Of Karnataka|06 October, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5593/2017 BETWEEN:
Kiran S/o Raju Aged about 20 years R/o 1st Main 1st A Cross, Sudhamanagar Bangalore-560 027. ... PETITIONER (By Sri Rajesh Rai K, Adv.) AND:
State by Siddapura Police Station Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building High Court Bengaluru-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.105/2017 of Siddapura P.S., Bangalore, for the offences P/U/Ss 376 and 417 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act.
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 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of IPC and also under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered in respondent – police station Crime No.105/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are, victim girl herself is the complainant. She has stated that she is engaged in selling cucumber at Lalbagh and she got acquainted with the petitioner who is also engaged in the same business. Petitioner insisted her to love him though the complainant refused his proposal. However, petitioner continued his proposal and about five months prior to the incident, petitioner by promising to marry the complainant, took her to a room situated at Lalbagh West Gate and thereby forcibly committed sexual intercourse on her though she refused. Thereafter, he used to repeat the said act at his residence several times. Further allegation is that later accused having come to know that victim has become pregnant of three months, refused to marry her. Complainant lodged the complaint, on the basis of which, case was registered for the above said offences.
3. 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.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner along with petition, so also, the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate Court at Bengaluru in the above said crime number and also perused the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner filed along with Memo dated 6.10.2017.
5. As per the complaint averments the age of the complainant is 17 years, so also, in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. the age of the victim is mentioned as 17 years. But, as per the charge sheet material her age is 17 years 4 months. In this connection learned HCGP has submitted that when she is below the age of 18 years, her consent is immaterial. The allegations in the complaint and the first sentence in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. shows that victim herself was in love with petitioner-accused. The complaint averments shows that it is not the one act of sexual intercourse on the victim girl, but there are series of such acts taken place in succession. Even then there was no such complaint by the victim girl against the petitioner on earlier occasions. According to the complaint averments when the victim girl was carrying the pregnancy of three months, the complaint came to be filed. Considering the entire materials placed on record, it prima facie shows that the sexual act between the two is consensual in nature.
6. The petitioner has contended in the petition that he is innocent and not committed the alleged offences and there is false implication. He has undertaken to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court. The investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. Hence, I am of the opinion that petitioner can be granted with bail.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of IPC and also under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered in respondent – police station Crime No.105/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Kiran vs State By Siddapura Police Station

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
06 October, 2017
Judges
  • Budihal R B