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.7995/2017 BETWEEN:
SHAMA S/O ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/A YANAGUNTE VILLAGE SULIBELE HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562129. (BY SRI.B. ANAND, ADV.) AND STATE BY SULIBELE POLICE STATION NANDAGUDI CIRCLE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING HIGH COURT, BENGALURU – 560001. (BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) ... PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.60/2017 OF SULIBELE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT AND IN SPL.C.NO.289/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 323, 376 AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(W)(l) of SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ORDINANCE 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. (wrongly mentioned as under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.) seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 376 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and under Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(W)(i) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance Act, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.60/2017. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offence under Sections 323, 376 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and under Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(W)(i) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance Act.
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 during the course of his arguments has submitted that looking to the entire materials, it prima-facie shows that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Referring to the complaint averment and the history furnished before the Doctor, he submitted that there is no consistency in the case. The materials show that there was a love affair between the petitioner and the complainant. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Hence, petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has submitted that looking to the prosecution material the contents of the complaint, so also, her statement before the JMFC Court and other charge sheet material, they prima-facie shows the involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offence. Hence, submitted that petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record, so also, the entire charge sheet material.
6. The victim girl herself lodged the complaint, wherein she has stated her age as 17 years and mentioned that about one month back the incident took place and petitioner taken her obscene photographs and he posed life threat to her if case she disclose the same to anybody, he will also disclose the obscene photographs to public. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered for the alleged offence.
7. Perusing the history furnished before the Doctor, when the victim girl was taken before the Doctor, wherein the story is different, it is mentioned in the history that the victim girl is having the love affair since five months and she was taken to a room belonging to C.W.11, the friend of the petitioner herein, outside Bengaluru, they stayed for two hours. About 1 ½ months back voluntarily she had sexual contact, but thereafter again she taken forcibly and there was sexual intercourse by the petitioner. Therefore, looking to the prosecution material collected during investigation, at this stage there is no consistency and there is a statement that she voluntarily had sexual act with the petitioner. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Petitioner contended in the petition that he is innocent and false allegations are made against him and he has undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner can be released on bail.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in connection with Crime No.60/2017 registered for the above said offences, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- 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 BSR