IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6865 OF 2019 Between:
Shivaraj Kumar S/o. Ganapathy, Age 24 years, R/o. Gadikeshwar Village, And Post – 585 324 Sulepet Hobli, Chincholi Taluk, Kalburgi District.
... Petitioner (By Sri. Kanteppa Huleppa, Advocate and Sri. Maruthi Gaonkar, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka By Channammanakere Acchukattu Police Station, Bengaluru-560085.
Rept. by SPP, High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-01.
2. Smt. Sannamma W/o. Chanaiah, Age 45 years 9th Main, Itumadu, As per the court order dated 21.10.2019 Banashankari, 3rd Stage, Bengaluru-560085.
…Respondents (By Sri. Honnappa, HCGP for R1, R2 - served) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., Praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.156/2019 registered by Channammanakere Achukattu Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 506 and 376(3) IPC and Section 5(L), 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER Notice issued to the complainant has been served as per the submission made by the learned High Court Government Pleader. Complainant has remained absent and there is no representation.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High court Government Pleader for the first respondent/State. Perused the records.
3. The charge sheet is filed against the petitioner for the offences under Section 506 and 376(3) of IPC. The allegations made in the chargesheet are that the victim girl was aged about 13 years and residing along with her family members. It is stated that the petitioner was also residing nearby the house of the victim girl and he often used to call the victim girl to his house for the purpose of playing carom. Under these circumstances, on 1.1.2019, the petitioner called the victim girl to his room under the guise of playing carom and in fact he has forcibly committed rape on her. It is also stated that on several occasions he had done so due to which she became pregnant. Thereafter, only when the mother of the victim girl came to know about the pregnancy of the said girl and that she forcibly asked her as to who was responsible to the said pregnancy, then she disclosed the name of the petitioner and the instances that have been taken place. On the basis of the said material, the police during the course of investigation got recorded the statement of the victim girl under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. In fact she reiterated the allegations made against the petitioner. The medical certificate also discloses that the victim girl was pregnant and the blood has been taken for the purpose of DNA test and the result is awaited.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is 4 or 5 days delay in lodging the complaint even after the mother came to know about the incident. It is also contended that the complainant and the family members have demanded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the petitioner. As he has not paid, a false case has been filed against him. There are other discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses. Therefore he pleaded for granting of bail.
5. On careful perusal of the entire charge sheet papers, the allegations made by the victim girl has been supported by her statement before the court under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The nature of the allegations made and also considering the age of the victim girl, the court has drawn a presumption under Section 129 of the Act which says that whenever the Charge Sheet is filed under Section 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act, the court has to draw initial presumption that, once the charge sheet is filed that the person has committed such an offence, unless the contrary is proved. So far as the allegations made with regard to demand of Rs.5,00,000/-, the same has to be proved during the course of trial. Charge Sheet has already been filed. Considering the age of the girl and the offences alleged against the accused, the petitioner s not made out a case for grant of bail. The petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE sd