Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1524 (KAR)

R. H. Harisha v. State of Karnataka

2017-11-16

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 114 read with 34 of IPC registered in respondent - police station Crime No.147/2017. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 493, 420, 504, 114 read with 34 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case that the victim girl herself has lodged the complaint, wherein she has stated that the petitioner used to come to her house and he was telling that he is loving her and wanted to marry her, he also asked the victim to love him. The further averments in the complaint shows that whenever the other family members of the victim girl went outside and when she alone was in the house, petitioner used to come to the said house and he was insisting her to have the sexual intercourse on the promise that he will marry her. She was objecting for the same and telling that he can request her parents for the marriage, inspite of that giving a promise to her, he used to have the sexual intercourse with her. Further averments in the complaint shows that for a period of three years they were meeting each other, having sexual intercourse. It is also stated in the complaint that the petitioner came to Sankranthi festival and on 15.01.2017 at about 9.00a.m., when the parents and the brother of the victim girl went to attend the work and she alone was in the house, at about 10.00a.m. the petitioner came to the house and committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. It is also stated that Panchayat was held for performing the marriage, even before the Panchayat he denied to marry the victim girl. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered for the alleged offence. 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 there is no prima-facie material to attract the alleged offence under Section 376 of IPC. Even according to her own contention of the victim girl, number of times they had sexual intercourse. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that there is no prima-facie material to attract the alleged offence under Section 376 of IPC. Even according to her own contention of the victim girl, number of times they had sexual intercourse. Hence, he submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the petition on the ground that by making a false promise to marry the victim girl, petitioner used to have sexual intercourse with her repeatedly. He has also submitted that trial Court rejected the bail application of the petitioner twice. He submitted that there is prima-facie material against the petitioner and hence, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the charge sheet material placed on record, so also, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the petitioner. 7. Looking to the complaint averments, it is stated that when the petitioner told the complainant that he is loving her, then on the promise made by the petitioner, she also started to love him. It is further stated that once in 15 days or once in a month, petitioner used to come to the village and whenever the family members of the victim were not in the house, he used to go to her house. It is also stated that since three years, petitioner used to have sexual intercourse with the victim girl. Looking to these averments made in the complaint and as the victim is of 28 years old, they shows that they were moving together, number of times they had sexual intercourse with each other. Therefore, prima-facie it shows that the alleged sexual intercourse between the two is consensual in nature. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner has undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Perusing the materials collected during investigation also prima-facie at this stage the alleged offence under Section 376 of IPC will not be attracted. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner has undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Perusing the materials collected during investigation also prima-facie at this stage the alleged offence under Section 376 of IPC will not be attracted. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail in connection with crime No.147/2017 registered for the above said offences, subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and has to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. (ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. (iii) Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.