IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5946/2017 BETWEEN:
SRI SRINIVASA S/O HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.277, 21ST CROSS, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560078 (BY SRI.NAIK N R., ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE BENGALURU CITY REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001 (BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.243/2017 OF SUBRAMANYAPURA P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 448,376,506 OF IPC.
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 of the offences punishable under Sections 448, 376, 506 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.243/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case that the victim woman lodged the complaint, wherein she has stated that about five years back the complainant and her husband came to Bengaluru and they are living at Gowdanapalya near Manjunathanagar, Bengaluru. The husband of the complainant is working with the petitioner for bar bending work and several occasion one or the other reasons the payment is not made by the accused, for which quarrel took place between them.
When the husband of the complainant is not ready and willing to continue his work with him, there is a scuffle between him and the petitioner. It is further stated that on 10.05.2015 at about 12.00noon, the petitioner forcibly trespassed in the house of the complainant and locked the door from inside, thereby forcibly committed rape on the complainant and threatened her with dire consequences and informed her not to disclose the said incident to her husband or the Police. However, it is stated that during the night when the husband came to the house, she told about the incident before him and as it was late night, they did not went to the Police Station, and on the next day of the incident they lodged the complaint, on the basis of which, case came to be registered against the petitioner.
3. 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.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that false allegations are made against the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He has also submitted that the very complainant made a representation to the Commissioner of Police on 19.05.2017, wherein she has clearly stated that no such incident has taken place and she has not at all stated so in her complaint and without her knowledge the complaint got written and her signature was taken forcibly, hence, she has requested the Police to drop the investigation in the case. It is also submitted that the husband of the complainant also consented for the said representation. Hence, this representation made by the complainant to the Police Commissioner also prima-
facie shows that it is a false case. Therefore, he submitted that petition be allowed and the petitioner may be admitted to regular bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has submitted that, the complaint averments are supported by the medical evidence. The Doctor, who examined the victim women, clearly opined that there are signs of recent sexual intercourse. Hence, he has submitted that this itself clearly shows the involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offence.
He has further submitted that sofar as representation dated 19.05.2017 is concerned, this Court on the earlier occasion directed him to enquire with the Police Commissioner’s Office, whether such representation has been filed. He has submitted that the same was enquired into, no doubt, such representation was received in the Police Commissioner’s office and it was sent for enquiry, but when the Police tried to contact the complainant, in order to make the enquiry whether it is from the complainant or not, she was not traced.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
7. Looking to the complaint averments, there are allegations made as against the petitioner by the victim woman that the petitioner criminally trespassed into her house when she alone was in the house and committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. In this regard, I have perused the medical records. The Doctor, gave the opinion that there are recent signs of sexual intercourse. In the final opinion, it is stated by the Doctor that from physical and genital examination of the complainant/victim evidence of signs of recent/previous sexual intercourse present. Therefore, even the medical records prima-facie supports the case of the prosecution at this stage.
8. I have also perused the representation said to have been made by the complainant to the Police Commissioner’s Office, but as the learned HCGP submitted that in order to make the enquiry, when the Police tried to contact, she was not available. Therefore, it is for the trial Court to consider the said representation during the course of trial, but sofar as the petitioner is concerned, since there is a prima-facie case made out by the prosecution about the involvement of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner and to release him on bail. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR