IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3686 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. SRI MUNIYAPPA, S/O SALLAPURIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 2. SRI ANANTH RAJU @ JOSHU, S/O GOVINDA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: C.K.PALYA VILLAGE, SAKALAVARA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106.
(BY SRI. RUDRAPPA.P, ADV.) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BANNERGHATTA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU-562 106 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUIDINGS , BENGALURU-560 001.
(BY SRI.K.P.YOGANNA, HCGP) ... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.40/2019 REGISTERED BY BANNERGHATTA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 366(a), 342 AND 376 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF POCSO ACT AND ETC., THIS CRL. PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not want to press the petition insofar as accused No.3 (petitioner No.2 herein) is concerned.
3. In view of the aforesaid submission, petition is dismissed as against accused No.3 as not pressed.
4. The respondent-police have laid charge sheet against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 366(a) and 376 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of POCSO Act. The records disclose that at the initial stage a complaint was lodged by the father of the victim at Bannerghatta police station and a case has been registered in Crime No.40/2019 for the offence under Section 363 of IPC. Subsequently, the victim girl, who was aged about 17 years was traced and her statement was also recorded on 23.03.2019. At the initial stage, under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the victim girl had given her statement that accused No.1-Keshava assured marrying her and have had sexual relationship with her. Thereafter, accused No.1-Keshav married one Kavya, therefore, the victim girl was frustrated in life and she wanted to commit suicide. In this context, she herself telephoned to petitioner No.1 stating the above said facts and told that she is going to commit suicide. The petitioner promised to take care of her and saying so, he took her to Podu village and obtained a house for rent in Brindavan Layout and kept her in the said house. Petitioner and accused No.3 were providing food to her in the said house up to 23.3.2019. On that day, police traced them and brought back to the police station. There is no allegation in the said statement against the petitioner that he had any sexual intercourse in the said house where she was kept by the petitioners herein. But, subsequently, she gave further statement before the police stating that accused Nos.1 and 3 had not done anything to her and they had no sexual contact with this victim girl, however, petitioner No.1 (A2) who has taken her to Podu village and kept her in a rented premise at Brindavan layout had committed sexual act against her will and therefore, on the basis of that statement, police have subsequently laid charge sheet against the petitioner No.1 (A2) deleting the names of accused Nos.1 and 3 from the charge sheet.
5. Looking to the above said nature of allegations and facts of the case, there are two statements of the victim are available before the Court recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, there are two views are available. In the first instance, no allegations are made against the petitioners. At the most, the offence under Section 363 is attracted so far as the petitioner is concerned if it is considered on the basis of the first statement made by the victim. During the course of evidence the prosecution has to prove the allegations made against this petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. In the above said facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail, particularly under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the following:
ORDER The Petition is allowed insofar as accused No.2/petitioner No.1 herein. Consequently, the petitioner No.1 shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.40/2019 of Bannerghatta police station for the offence under Sections 342, 366(a), 376 of IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of POCSO Act, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till the case registered against him is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ln.