IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION No.8887 OF 2017 BETWEEN SRI. NARASIMHARAJU V @ RAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O VENKARAVANAPPA R/AT ADARSHA NAGARA PAVAGADA TOWN TUMKUR DISTRICT – 561 202 (BY SRI. RENUKARADHYA R.D., ADV.,) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ARASIKERE POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001 (BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP.,) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.82/2016 OF ARASIKERE POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376 OF IPC AND SEC.4 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 376 of IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered in the respondent – police station in Crime No.82/2016.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the entire charge sheet materials produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner so also the order of the learned sessions judge rejecting the bail application of the present petitioner.
4. Perused the statement of the victim girl given before the police so also before the Magistrate Court recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. In both the statements, she consistently stated that the petitioner took her to the house and forcibly committed sexual inter course by gagging her mouth. Then he gave her Rs.2,000/- and asked her to go to Bengaluru. I have also perused the medical records and the opinion of the Doctor is also consistent with the case of the prosecution regarding the offence of rape. Even the history given before the Doctor also is in consonance with her statement recorded before the police as well as before the Magistrate Court. The date of birth of the victim girl is 1.3.2000 and as on the date of the alleged incident, she was a minor girl aged 16 years. Considering the materials, prima-facie there is involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offence, hence it is not a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE KLY/