Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 298 (KAR)

Govinda S/o Amresh v. State of Karnataka

2017-02-03

B.A.PATIL

body2017
ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No. 246/2016 of Sirwar Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 506, 376 r/w Section 34 of IPC and also for the offences punishable under Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, Accused No.1 used to torture the victim while she was going to the school. In that background, on 05.09.2016 at about 9.20 a.m., accused No.1 took the victim on his bike to a place called Ramappan Gudda and there, he has sexually assaulted her and brought her back and left near her house by threatening that if she informs the said fact to anybody, he will take away her life. Subsequently, the victim informed the same to her parents and on the basis of the said information, complaint came to be registered against the accused persons. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that serious allegations have been made only against accused No.1, the petitioner is in no way connected to the alleged crime. He has further contended that the only allegation made against the petitioner is that he used to move along with accused Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner was not having any knowledge about the alleged incident and he has been falsely implicated and has been sent behind the bars. It is further contended that petitioner is a student and if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and he is ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition. 5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contended that petitioner is the main person who has instigated and abetted accused No.1 in the commission of offence. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition. 5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contended that petitioner is the main person who has instigated and abetted accused No.1 in the commission of offence. He has further contended that the victim has stated the name of the petitioner and as such, the police have apprehended him and at this juncture, if the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses, he may abscond and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have gone through the contents of the complaint, FIR and other material produced along with the petition. 7. As could be seen from the contents of the complaint, accused No.1 who is said to be minor on the date of the alleged incident took the victim girl and had sexually assaulted her and thereafter, he left her near her home. It is nowhere mentioned in the complaint to the effect that accused No.3 was present at the place of incident and has abetted or instigated accused No.1. The only allegation made against the petitioner in the complaint is that petitioner used to move along with accused No.1. In that light, I feel that there is no prima-facie case made out against the petitioner. Hence, if the petitioner is released on bail by imposing stringent conditions, it would safeguard the interest of the prosecution and it would meet the ends of justice. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused No.3 is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses; (iii) The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer as and when required; (iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court regularly on all the dates of hearing without fail. (v) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Court without its prior permission.