IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7795/2017 BETWEEN:
Vijayakumar @ Vijay, S/o. Anand, Aged about 22 years, R/at Channasandra Village, Hessaraghatta Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk – 560 089.
... Petitioner (By Sri.H.V.Subramanya, Advocate) AND:
State by Doddabelavangala Police Station, SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.
...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.168/2017 of Doddabelavangala Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence p/u/s 366(A) and 376 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Section 366(A) and 376 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), registered in respondent police station Crime No.168/2017.
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 brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments is that the petitioner herein kidnapped the victim girl and he has married her and had forcible sexual intercourse thereby committing the alleged offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner produces the copy of the FIR in Cr.No.143/2017 which was filed by the mother of the victim girl earlier, regarding missing of the victim girl. He made the submission that looking to the complaint the age of the victim girl is mentioned by the mother herself as 18 years 2 months. He also drew the attention of this Court to the contents of the said complaint and submitted that there is submission in the said complaint that the daughter of the complainant while leaving the house took the ornaments and cash. He submitted that in the subsequent complaint purposefully and with an intention to falsely implicate the petitioner, age is mentioned as that she is a minor. The learned counsel submitted that there are also school records which also goes to show that as on the date of alleged incident she was 18 years 2 months.
Hence, he submitted there is no offence at all and by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP opposes the petition and submitted that looking to the prosecution materials there is a prima-facie case against the petitioner herein, offences alleged are serious in nature and hence petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the order of the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the petitioner, so also I have perused the school records produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner along with the petition and the photographs. Looking to the materials placed on record, the petitioner is able to make out a case that the girl was 18 years 2 months and even looking to the prosecution material at place taken at state that there is a kidnapping of the victim girl by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be granted with bail by imposing reasonable conditions.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
The petitioner-accused is ordered to be released on bail for the alleged offences, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE Sv/-