IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8955/2017 BETWEEN:
PARASHURAM S/O HANUMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. NO.5, PARASHAPPA BUILDING, NEAR MANGAMMA TEMPLE, BILLEKAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 076. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADV.,) AND:
STATE BY MICO LAYOUT P.S. BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.273/2017 OF MICO LAYOUT P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506, 376 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(10)(12) OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULES TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) 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 offences punishable under Sections 506, 376 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10)(12) of Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.273/2017.
2. 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.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that there is a delay of nearly two months which is not explained by the complainant. It is also his submission that even after filing of the complaint, again there is a delay of nearly ten days in recording her statement. Learned counsel further submitted that looking to the complaint averments, they will not make out a case of the alleged offence under Section 376 of IPC. There is a false implication of the petitioner in the said case and further submitted that now the investigation of the case is completed, charge sheet is also filed. Petitioner is having two minor children. Therefore, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on regular bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has submitted that, looking to the allegations made in the complaint, so also in the 164 statement of the victim girl, delay has been properly explained. He made the submission that now she is carrying pregnancy. Hence, she submits that petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
6. The alleged incident said to have taken place on 20.03.2017 whereas, the complaint came to be filed on 08.05.2017. As submitted there is a delay of nearly two months in lodging the complaint. But looking to the complaint so also the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. she has explained the delay. She has stated there was threat by the present petitioner that in case, if, she disclose the said fact to anybody he will not spare her. Therefore, she has stated because of the fear firstly she went to the village, thereafter, she came to Bengaluru to do the work for her livelihood, thereafterwards, she narrated the same before one Mohan and with the help of Mohan ultimately she lodged the complaint. The medical evidence conducted in the case of the victim girl also supports the case of the prosecution.
7. Looking to the materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that there is prima-facie material placed by the prosecution for the alleged offence under Section 376 of IPC. Therefore, it is not a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, criminal petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE BS CT-ADP