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.8747/2017 BETWEEN:
Ramanjinappa @ Ramanjinigowda S/o late Chinnappa, R/at Doddadalavatta, I.D.Halli Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru-572127. .. Petitioner ( By Sri Nagabhushana Reddy K., Advocate ) AND The State of Karnataka By Madanayakanalli Police Station, Represented by SPP High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-560 001. .. 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 Crime No.395/2017, of Madanayakanalli Police Station, Bangalore District, for the offences punishable under Section 377 of IPC, Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, r/w. Section 3(1)(S) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015.
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 of the offences punishable under Section 377 of IPC and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, r/w. Section 3(1)(S) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015, registered in respondent-police station in Crime No.395/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are that, father of the boy is the complainant in this case. In the complaint it is stated that he is having a son by name Shilesh and a daughter by name Yashita. He got admitted his son-Shailesh to 6th standard in Morarji Desai Residential School, Adakamaranalli, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru City, in the month of May, 2017. He used to visit the said school and often he used to enquire about his son’s health condition. After 10 to 12 days from the date of joining the school, his son has not shown any interest to study and he seems to be dull. When the complainant and his wife enquired, their son not shown any interest to study in the above said school. Then they got him admitted to Holy Shephard School at Indiranagar. The further allegation is that on 18.8.2017, when the complainant enquired his son regarding not staying in the Morarji Desai Residential School, then his son told about the act done by the present petitioner of the alleged offences. Hence, on the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent- State.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that the complaint allegations clearly shows that after admitting the complainant’s son to the said school and after lapse of 10 to 12 days, complainant went to the said school and enquired with his son and at that time only, he came to know about the incident. Even then, he kept silent continuously for a period of three months. Hence, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this delay of three months is not explained properly by the prosecution. The learned counsel further submitted that the alleged offences under the provisions of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is also not made applicable to the facts of the present case. He made the submission that since three months, the petitioner is in custody and investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that there is no delay at all. Looking to the complaint averments, it is submitted that when the complainant enquired with his son, on 18.8.2017 itself he came to know about the incident and immediately he filed the complaint. The learned HCGP further made the submission that materials goes to show that there is involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offences. Hence, he submitted that it is a black spot on the life of the son of the complainant. Therefore, the petitioner is 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 in rejecting the bail application of the petitioner.
7. Looking to the materials placed on record, the complainant has mentioned in the complaint that the present petitioner made an attempt to commit the said offences. Therefore, the materials goes to show that the offence is not yet committed, bit it was an attempt to commit the said offence. These allegations are denied by the petitioner in the bail petition stating that there is a false implication and he may be released on bail by imposing reasonable conditions.
8. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed. Looking to the offences alleged, they are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, he can be admitted to regular bail.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Section 377 of IPC and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, r/w. Section 3(1)(S) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015, registered in Crime No.395/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to 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. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE bk/