IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRL. P. NO.6430/2017 BETWEEN SHANKAR LAL S/O PREETHA RAM, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT PREMA SHIVA JEWELLERS, SHETTARA ROAD, TYAMAGONDLU TOWN, NELAMANGALAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. KUMARA K G, ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TYAMAGONDLU POLICE STATION, NELMANGALA-562123 REPD. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA, BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.225/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND CRIME NO.50/2017 OF TYAMAGONDLU POLICE STATION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376(2)(I),506 OF IPC R/W SEC.6 OF POCSO ACT.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ‘ORDERS’, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This is the petition by the petitioner filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to release the petitioner on bail for the alleged offences punishable under Section 376(2) (i), 506 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act registered by the respondent police in Crime No.50/2017.
2. The mother of the victim is the complainant in this case wherein, she has stated that child by name Jayanti, aged about 12 ½ years, Durga 11 years, Nisha 6 years and Tarun 1 ½ year in the shared residential building in the ground floor having the shop by name Prem Shiva Jewellers and residing in the first and second floor. At about 8 years back the complainant’s brother Devaram had brought the petitioner Shankarlal from their native place in order to work in the complainant’s shop. The petitioner was working in the shop and residing in the second floor. The complainant’s daughter is studying at Varun International School in 6th Standard and on that year she was to be admitted to 7th Standard. She was going to the school daily by van. Petitioner is a married just two years back to one Narbada and having one small kid. After six months of the marriage, they were residing in the second floor of the complainant’s building. When the wife of the petitioner had gone for delivery, the petitioner alone was residing in the second floor. On 27.04.2017 at about 4.00 pm, the complainant cleaned the wheat in the terrace and asked her daughter Jayanthi to call the petitioner to take the wheat to the flour mill. At that time the complainant’s daughter said that she will not call him as he has given torture to her, then the complainant said to her not to be afraid and asked her what has happened at that time. She narrated about the sexual act committed on her twice by the present petitioner. Then they have decided firstly to take the child to the medical treatment. Thereafter to file a complaint, on the basis of the said complaint a case came to be registered as against the petitioner for the alleged offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that the petitioner worked in the shop of the complainant since eight years and there are no other such complaint as against him during that period. Therefore, he made the submission that there is a false implication of the petitioner in the said case. It is also his submission that looking to the averments made in the complaint itself it goes to show that after due deliberation such a false complaint came to be filed against the present petitioner. Counsel submitted that now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed, from the date of arrest he is in custody and by imposing the reasonable condition, the petition may be admitted to regular bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the petitioner submitting that looking to the statement of the victim girl given before the police as well as before the court recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. She has clearly stated that two times she was subjected to such sexual acts forcibly by the present petitioner. It is also his submission that even the doctor who examined the victim girl has mentioned regarding the hymen that is ruptured. Hence, he made the submission that the case of the prosecution is also supported by the medical evidence. The child is of the minor aged about 12 ½ years. Hence, the learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that it is not a case for grant of bail to the petitioner herein.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, Complaint and other materials produced in the case.
7. Looking to the allegations made in the complaint, it is stated that the girl when she was asked to call the present petitioner to take the wheat from the terrace to the flour mill, she told that she will not go and she was afraid when asked by the mother. She gave the details about the sexual acts committed on her twice by the petitioner. In view of the statement of the victim girl before the mother, firstly she was taken to hospital and she was examined by the doctor, then they filed a complaint.
8. Looking to the materials the statement of the victim girl, prima-facie there is a material about sexual acts said to have been committed on the victim girl. Even looking to the medical records the doctor mentioned regarding the hymen perineum irregular. Looking to these materials also the prosecution case is supported by the medical information at this stage. No doubt there is a delay of one month in lodging the complaint but the victim girl when asked then only the mother came to know about the incident. Otherwise, there was no occasion for the family members to approach the police station. Therefore, only on the ground that merely a delay of one month in lodging the case, the other materials cannot be ignored by the court at this stage.
9. Looking to the entire materials on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has placed the prima-facie material to show the acts of the accused in committing the alleged offence and therefore, it is not a case for grant of bail.
Accordingly, the case is hereby rejected.
CT-HR Chs* Sd/- JUDGE