IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8582/2017 BETWEEN:
Sri Ravichandra @ Ravi, S/o Late Lachagayya, Aged about 26 years, Choudasandra, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District – 562 123 ... Petitioner (By Sri Prashanth H.S, Advocate) AND:
State by Nelamangala (R) Police Station, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District, Represented by Public Prosecutor Pin Code – 562 123 ...Respondent (By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.122/2017 of Nelamangala Rural Police Station, Bengaluru district, for the offences p/u/s 363 and 376 of IPC and Section 4 and 6 of Protection on Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R This is a petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the alleged offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC, registered in respondent police station Crime No.122/2017 and subsequently offences under Section 376 of IPC and also under Section 4 and 6 of Protection on Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, were also inserted in the case after return of the victim girl and recording her statement.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The counsel for the petitioner made the submission that the complaint averments and also the other prosecution material goes to show that there was love affair between the victim girl and the petitioner. He also made the submission that after the victim girl left the house she married the present petitioner and returned back to the house after lapse of three months. Hence, he submitted that this itself clearly goes to show prima-facie she left the house on her own and petitioner has no role in committing the alleged offence under Section 363 of IPC. He submitted that now the case is still under investigation, the charge-sheet is yet to be filed before the Court.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP opposes the petition submitting that the statement of the victim girl indicates that the petitioner forcibly married her and had sexual intercourse against her will, inspite of her protest. He also made the submission looking to the medical records that the Doctor who examined the victim girl and conducted examination of her genitals, has mentioned that there is a rupture of hymen. He also submitted that the matter is still under investigation and charge-sheet is yet to be filed in the case. Hence, he submits that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials produced in the case so also the submission made by learned HCGP. The victim girl in her statement has stated that the petitioner committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. Regarding the age of the victim girl is concerned, prosecution has produced documentary evidence showing that her date of birth is 09.06.2000. Therefore, it goes to show that she is still a minor.
Medical records goes to show that her hymen is ruptured as per the opinion of the Doctor, who examined the victim girl. These materials prima-facie indicate the involvement of the petitioner in committing the said offence. Charge-sheet is also yet to be filed in the case. Therefore, considering these materials, I am of the opinion it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.
Accordingly, petition is rejected. However, liberty is given to the petitioner that after filing of charge-sheet, he can move the concerned Court.
Sd/- JUDGE SV