IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5486/2017 BETWEEN:
1. KULLANNA S/O ARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIKKASULIKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANGARA DISTRICT. PIN CODE 562 160.
2. MUNIYA @ MUNIRAJU S/O SAKAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT KURININGAIAHNADODDI VILLAGE, MADABAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANGARA DISTRICT.
PIN CODE-
3. PUTTA @ MUNIRAJU @ MUNIYA S/O RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT CHIKKASULIKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT PIN CODE 562 160.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.PARTHA SARATHY M., ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY RAMANGARA RURAL POLICE STATION, RAMANGARA REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001.
(BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) ...RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.43/2017 OF RAMANAGARA RURAL POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376(D) AND 114 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 376D, 114 of IPC registered in respondent – police station Crime No.43/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case that victim women lodged the complaint, wherein it is stated that she is residing in the said address since six years in her father’s house. The husband of the complainant was expired and from that day she is residing along with her eight year old son in the said address. One Smt.Nagamma @ Nagi, the neighbour of the complainant is having acquaintance. On 23.01.2017, all the family members of the complainant went to temple; the complainant and her age-old father were only in the house. At that time, Nagamma @ Nagi met with the complainant near the house of one Umesh and as she invited the complainant to her house, the complainant went to her house. Then the complainant had the meals in the house of Nagamma and as it was dark, Nagamma asked how she can go to her village and told that she will accompany her to some distance. When both of them were walking on the way, petitioner No.1 herein came on a scooter. Said Nagamma sent the complainant along with him on the scooter. Petitioner No.1 made the complainant to alight from the two wheeler vehicle nearby Madegowdana Doddi by the side of the road. Thereafter, 2-3 persons came to the said place. Petitioner No.1 made her to consume liquor even though she told that she is not in the habit of consuming liquor. Then she was made to remove her clothes, then the petitioners herein touched her body, chest, thighs and other parts and pressed the body parts and thereafter they committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. Thereafter, said Nagamma made Kullanna/petitioner No.1 and Hanuma to give Rs.100/- each to the complainant. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 left the complainant nearby the shop of Shivamma of Katukanapally and went away. Thereafter, somehow the complainant went to her house. From the said date, the complainant is having severe stomach pain, so also, the body pain. She was not able to have the meals and looking to her situation and the position, the family members, who returned back from the temple, enquired with her whether she is alright, and because of the fear she had not told anything to them properly. On 01.02.2017 as there was a severe stomach pain, she told the actual fact before them, then she was taken to Ramanagara Government Hospital. Hence, she requested to take action against the persons, who committed rape on her. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered for the said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments has submitted that looking to the prosecution material firstly there is delay of seven days in lodging the complaint and there no proper explanation for the said delay. He has also submitted that the medical records also not supporting the case of the prosecution. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. He has also submitted that now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed, hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has submitted that, there is a gang rape on the victim and there is no reason for the victim to file a false complaint against the petitioners herein. He has also submitted that there is prima-facie material as against the petitioners and hence, they are not entitled to be granted with bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record, so also, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application.
7. Looking to the complaint averments, no doubt, there are allegations that on 23.01.2017 the present petitioners committed forcible sexual intercourse on the complainant, but the complaint came to be filed on 01.02.2017 i.e., after lapse of seven days. The complainant has not stated as to why there is delay of seven days, she has only mentioned that because of the fear she has not explained about the incident before the family members.
8. I have also perused the medical records.
Looking to the medical certificate by the Doctor, who conducted medical examination, in column No.29 it is mentioned that there is no evidence of fresh sexual assault, no external/internal injuries, but the patient is having severe anemia due to starvation/long standing Hb% 9b and blood VDRL week +ve. Therefore, even looking to the medical certificate, there are no external and internal injuries and in Col.No.12 of the physical examination, it is mentioned in the history that sexual assault by more than 2 people. Therefore, even in the said column also there are no specific allegations about the number of persons, who committed the alleged assault. The petitioners have contended in the petition that they are innocent and not committed the alleged offence, they have been falsely implicated in the case. Investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Therefore, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners can be enlarged on bail.
9. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 are ordered to be released on bail of the offence punishable under Sections 376D, 114 of IPC registered in respondent – police station Crime No.43/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Each petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and has to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioners have to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
BSR Sd/- JUDGE