IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2136/2019 BETWEEN:
Kumar N.M Aged about 37 years S/o Muniyappa R/at Nernahalli Village Bangarpet Taluk Kolar District – 563 114 Now at Kamakshi Gudi Beedi Infront of Ambedkar Hostel Muthyalpet Mulbagal Town Kolar District – 563 131.
(By Sri G. Udhaya Kumar, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka by The Sub Inspector of Police Mulbagal Police Station Kolar District – 563 131 Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court Complex Bengaluru.
…Petitioner 2. Meenakshi P Aged 18 years D/o late Prabhakar M W/o Nagarjuna No.272, Behind Degree College Hostel Muthyalapete Mulbagal Town Kolar (District) Karnataka.
(By Sri. Honnappa, HCGP for R1;
…Respondents Sri. D. Mohan Kumar, Advocate for R2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.187/2018 registered by Mulbagal Town Police Station, Kolar and in S.C.No.57/2019 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 354(A), 354(B), 324, 504 and 506 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 66(E) of Information Technology Act, 2008 and etc.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.
2. On perusal of the records, it reveals that charge sheet has been laid against the petitioner making allegations that the victim lady has lodged a complaint stating that since two years, the accused has been exploiting her sexually. When the victim girl was studying in PUC, at that time, the petitioner came in contact with her telling that he was the President of Dalit Sangarsha Samithi and he requested her that he would help her if need arises. By saying so, about two years ago, he took her on a motorcycle to a mango grove situated at Soonavadi stating that the said mango grove belongs to him and there at the tip of the knife, against her will and wish, has ravished her and thereafter also he used to have sexual intercourse with her by threatening her. It is also stated that she was given in marriage to one Nagarjuna and thereafter also the petitioner again and again came to her house and committed rape on her. He has also taken nude photos of her and further he has uploaded the same in the face-book and the mobile belonging to her husband.
Thereafter, she questioned the act of the petitioner, but the petitioner abused her in filthy language and also assaulted and threatened her with dire consequences. The police have registered a case and submitted the charge sheet, which is registered in S.C.No.57/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 354(A), 354(B), 324, 504, 201 of IPC and also under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 66(E) of Information Technology Act, 2008.
3. During the course of investigation, the police have also got recorded the statement of the victim girl under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C., wherein she has in detail reiterated the said allegations made by her at the initial stages.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is a false case leveled against the petitioner because he is a dalit. He is a person who has lodged many number of complaints against various persons for right cause which has irritated police people. Therefore, in order to snag him, a false case has been created with the help of the victim girl. Though he has produced many number of documents, they are not actually pertaining to this particular case.
5. Further added to the above, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and also learned HCGP brought to the notice of this Court that he is not only involved in this case, but also involved in other cases, which are registered against him in Crime Nos.328/2016, 246/2016, 223/2016 and 150/2017.
6. Learned counsel also furnished a copy of the FIR pertaining to the above cases. Therefore, learned HCGP as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have submitted that the nature of the offences alleged and the facts of the case are serious in nature and further, charge-sheet has already been filed and statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C of the victim has also recorded, in which she has reiterated the facts of the case. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. Having heard the arguments and on careful perusal of the entire records, it is clear that there is some delay in lodging the complaint and it is stated by the complainant that since two years, the petitioner has been exploiting the victim sexually in one or the other way and threatened her with dire consequences and even after the marriage, he did not leave her and he has taken photographs of victim in his mobile and uploaded in the Facebook. So far as this aspect is concerned, though learned counsel has contended that none of the mobile phones have been seized pertaining to the petitioner from which the said nude photographs have been sent to the husband of the petitioner. It is also submitted at the bar that after the above incident happened, her husband has left her and presently, in lurch. The material on records discloses that victim has categorically stated in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C that as on the date of commission of the offence, she was minor and aged less than 18 years. Therefore, POCSO Act has been invoked. Though learned counsel submitted that she has crossed age of 18 years, that has to be thrashed out during the course of full fledged trial. When the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C is available before this Court, which is virtually recorded by the jurisdictional Court, it raises the presumption under Section 29 of the Act that once the statement of the victim is recorded and charge-sheet is filed, Court has to presume the existence of such an act unless it is rebutted during the course of trial. Under the above said circumstances, though the grounds urged by the learned HCGP for the respondent – State that other cases are still pending against the accused and on perusal of materials available on record, in my opinion, petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. However, it is made clear that after evidence of the victim is recorded by the trial Court, the petitioner is at liberty to move a fresh bail petition.
With the above observations, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SB