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.7509/2017 BETWEEN SRI RAHAMATH ULLA S/O. LATE ALAMSABI, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, # PARESANDRA VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562104. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHETAN.B FOR SRI. RAJSHEKAR B S, ADV.) AND STATE BY GUDIBANDE POLICE STATION REB. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.334/2016 OF GUDIBANDE POLICE STATION, CHIKKABALLAPURA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 366(A).376,323,114 AND 506 OF IPC AND SEC. 4 AND 6 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ‘ORDERS’, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This is the petition by the petitioner-accused No.2 filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent police to release the petitioner-accused No.2 on bail in the event of arrest of the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code registered by the respondent police station in Crime No.334/2016 and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Section 323, 366(A), 376, 114 and 506 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act filed against five accused persons.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Counsel for accused No.2 made the submission that so far as the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is only accused No.1 against whom such allegations are made. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the only allegation that he assisted the accused No.1 in kidnapping the victim girl and also committing sexual intercourse on her.
3. Learned counsel submitted that accused No.3 and 4 have already been granted anticipatory bail by the order of this court. Hence, it is submitted to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that referring to the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the JMFC Court, she has stated that it is the present petitioner who put the cloth on her face then she became unconscious and fell down. Thereafterwards, when she regained consciousness she was at the place of the offence and the accused No.2 was present. Her statement also goes to show, then accused No.1 came to the place, both accused No.1 and 2 were conversing over the phone and they were also talking about movements of the mother of the victim girl. Therefore, he made the submission that looking to the statement of the victim girl throughout the period of committing the alleged offence from kidnap till committing the sexual intercourse on her the present petitioner was very much present and he assisted accused No.1 in the matter hence, it is submitted this is not a case to grant anticipatory bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, Complaint and entire charge sheet material produced in the case by the counsel for the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also produced the copy of the bail order dated 18.08.2017 passed by this court in Criminal Petition No.5525/2017 in respect of accused No.3 and 4.
7. Looking to the submission of the victim girl, there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioner. Therefore, the ground of parity of granting anticipatory bail to the accused No.3 and 4 is not available to the present petitioner. The matter requires custodial interrogation of the petitioner and it is not the case for granting anticipatory bail.
Hence, the petition is hereby rejected.
CT-HR Chs* Sd/- JUDGE