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 CRL.P. No.6191 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
T.J. VARKI @ SAJU @ ASHOK S/O. LATE JOHN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT TADATTIL HOUSE, UDAYA NAGAR, NEAR CHURCH, MUDDOR VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K FOR SRI ARUNA SHYAM M, ADV.) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH KARKALA RURAL POLICE STATION, UDUPI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE- 560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.2/2017 OF KARKALA RURAL P.S. UDUPI DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 448, 417, 376, 376(2)(N) OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This is the petition filed by the petitioner accused under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 448, 417, 376, 376(2)(N) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, so also under Sections 3(1)(w)(i) clause 12 and Section 3 Clause 2(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, registered in respondent police station in Crime No.2/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments, the victim girl herself is the complainant in this case. She is aged about 20 years and petitioner is the neighbor of the complainant who is the native of the Kerala State. The further averments in the complaint goes to show that whenever there was a problem for water, the complainant and her mother used to go to the petitioner’s house to fetch the water and it is further stated that the petitioner assured the complainant that he is going to marry her. On such assurance he committed the sexual intercourse on her and this has happened number of times and she became pregnant. When she asked the petitioner to marry her, he refused and he left the place. On the basis of said complaint a case came to be registered for the said offence.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State. Counsel for the petitioner made the submission that there is no prima facie case made out as against the petitioner that he has committed the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal code or the other alleged offences. He made the submission that there is a delay of more than six months in lodging the complaint, which is not properly explained. Learned counsel submitted that now the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Hence by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. In support of his contention counsel relied upon the order of this Court dated 14.11.2014 passed in Crl.P.No.5279/2014.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that looking to the materials placed on record it goes to show that the victim is of 20 years age, belonging to scheduled caste community and the petitioner is a Christian by religion taking undue advantage of the situation of the complainant and by making a false promise he had sexual intercourse with the complainant and because of that reason the complainant conceived a child. Hence he submitted that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. Hence he submitted to reject the petition.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the entire materials produced by the petitioner along with the petition. Looking to the complaint averments age of the victim girl is 20 years and she has stated in the complaint that petitioner is a neighbor and herself and her mother used to go to the house of the petitioner to fetch the water whenever there was a problem for water. So, there was close acquaintance between herself and the petitioner and the petitioner assuring that he will marry her he had the sexual intercourse number of times. Ultimately she conceived and carrying the pregnancy. Therefore, considering these factual matrix of the case prima facie it goes to show that the sex in between the petitioner and the complainant is consensual in nature. The petitioner contended that he is innocent and there is a false implication. He has not committed any alleged offences. He is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court. In view of these materials and also the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uday vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2003) 4 SCC 46, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner accused is ordered to be released on bail of the alleged offences subject to the following conditions.
(1) The petitioner to execute personal bond for `.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.
(2) He shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
(3) He has to appear before the concerned court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE ykl