IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6889/2017 Between:
Sri. Beeregowda @ Beeresha, S/o Basavegowda, Aged about 23 years, Residing at Yarahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, H.D. Kote Taluk, Mysuru District – 571 114.
(By Sri. Srinivasa. D.C, Advocate) And:
State of Karnataka By H.D. Kote Police, Represented by The State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru- 560 001.
(By Sri S. Vishwamurthy, HCGP) …Petitioner ...Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.159/2017 of H.D. Kote Police Station, Mysuru District for the offence p/u/s 376 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in Crime No.159/2017 registered by the respondent-police in respect of the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.
3. The allegation is, during the morning hours of 23.05.2017, under the guise of giving drop, the petitioner took the complainant from her land in his motor bike, after she alighted from the bike, he closed her mouth with his hand and took her near a thicket and committed rape on her, etc.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that absolutely there is no medical evidence supporting the prosecution case. FSL report does not indicate the presence of semenal stains in the pubic hair and underwear seized. She is a married lady with grown up daughters. No external injuries were noticed during her clinical examination. Further, the petitioner in her complaint has described the place of occurrence as Gutti near quarry of P.Rangappa but, in her further statement, she has given another version about the place of occurrence, thus she is lying about the place of incident. The petitioner undertakes to abide any conditions that may be imposed on him by this Court.
5. Learned HCGP opposes the petition.
6. Perused the chargesheet papers. Of course, there is no material in support of the prosecution’s case since there is one day delay in lodging the complaint. Still there are two eyewitnesses, who are stated to have appeared at the spot while the petitioner was allegedly committing the offence. Having regard to the nature of the allegation, it is not proper to consider the petition on its merits at this stage.
7. Hence, the petition is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial, by preponing the case, frame the charge and record the statements of CWs.1 to 3, which exercise shall be completed within 60 days from the date of communication of this order.
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to move fresh bail petition before the trial Court thereafter. In that event, the trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law, without being influenced by the earlier order of rejection of his bail petition.
Registry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is also requested to communicate this order to the concerned Court.
Sd/- JUDGE DL