IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8555/2017 BETWEEN:
SRI VIJAYKUMAR S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.714, WARD NO.18, PUTTAPAGUDI BEEDI, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-50000 (BY SRI. PRAKASHA K V., ADV.) AND ... PETITIONER STATE BY DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.93/2017 OF DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 363,366,343,376 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 4,6,9(L) OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 343, 376 of IPC and also under Sections 4, 6 and 9(l) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act registered in respondent police station Crime No.93/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments that the own brother of the victim girl lodged the complaint, wherein he has stated that his sister was missing on 29.08.2017, even though they made search, she was not traced and as the father of the complainant was suffering from ailments, getting treatment in the hospital, there is some delay in lodging the complaint. The further averments in the complaint show that on 14.09.2017 the sister of the complainant came to the house and when he enquired her, she told that one Manjunath (accused No.1) resident of Devanahalli Town took her by misrepresentation to the house of his sister at Arasinahalli, Devanahalli Taluk and there he committed sexual intercourse on her number of times. This is the allegation made in the original compliant lodged by the brother of the victim girl. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered for the said offences.
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. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
5. Looking to paragraph No.2 of the requisition dated 26.09.2017 made by the Police before the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, it is mentioned that the victim girl was produced before the counseling centre on 25.09.2017 and she gave the statement before the counseling centre that from Manjunath there is no sort of any trouble to her, she herself went along with the said Manjunath, but when they were staying at Devanahalli, the owner of the said house i.e., the petitioner herein, gave sexual harassment to her, therefore, it is requested to take action against the petitioner herein through the Police requisition.
6. Learned HCGP also relied upon the statement of the victim girl given under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the JMFC Court at Devanahalli and submitted that the statement of the victim girl clearly shows that it is the petitioner, who committed rape on her, and not Manjunath.
7. Perusing the said statement of the victim girl given before JMFC Court, it is stated by the victim girl that on the last Wednesday the owner Vijay, petitioner herein, took her forcibly to the house, he removed her clothes and forcibly committed sexual intercourse on her. She has further stated that from 29.08.2017 to 14.09.2017 she was staying in the house of sister of Manjunath, Manjunath had not kidnapped her, she herself went and Manjunath has not at all committed intercourse on her. Looking to the statement of the victim girl and also the contents of the complaint, at this stage, they are contrary to each other. The complaint is given by the own brother of the victim girl, wherein it is mentioned that the complaint is as per the say made by his sister that it is Manjunath, who alleged to have committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. The petitioner has contended in the petition that he is innocent, not committed the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the case and he has also undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner can be granted with anticipatory bail.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.93/2017 registered for the above said offence, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and has to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
iv. Petitioner has to cooperate with the Investigating agency for the medical examination.
v. The petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
BSR Sd/- JUDGE