Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1727 (KAR)

Ramesha K @ Kaddi Ramesh v. State Of Karnataka

2020-09-04

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No.134/2019 of Sirigere Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 354(D), 363, 366, 376, 506 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Mallikarjuna father of victim girl had filed complaint alleging that his daughter victim girl is aged about 17 years was PUC student and she was regularly attending the classes in Ballari S.G.College. It is further alleged that on 13.12.2019 at about 7.30 a.m. as usual she went to Ballari to attend the classes, but she did not return to home on that day. It is further alleged that inspite of searching the victim, complainant failed to trace her and subsequently he came to know that she went with petitioner-accused. Therefore, he lodged complaint on 15.12.2019. On the basis of the complaint a case came to be registered in Sirigere P.S., Ballari Crime No.134/2019 for the offence under Section 363 of IPC. After investigation, Police have filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 354(D), 363, 366, 376, 506 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. The accusations made in the charge sheet is that victim girl was sitting in Basket Ball ground of S.G. College, Ballari and at that time the petitioner-accused went there and told her that her parents are in new bus stand, Ballari and they have asked him to bring her and so saying falsely, he took the victim girl by threatening her stating that he will kill his father and took her in Bus to Ananthpur and thereafter in train to Tirupathi and stayed there in a room wherein he has sexually assaulted her and thereafter on 17.12.2019 he brought her to Ballari and sent her to Sirigere in a Taxi. Hence, the complainant went to Police Station and filed her complaint. Police arrested the petitioner. The petitioneraccused has filed the bail application before I Addl. District and Special Judge, Ballari and the same is rejected by order dated 10.06.2020. Therefore, the petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking bail. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned HCGP for respondent-State. 4. Police arrested the petitioner. The petitioneraccused has filed the bail application before I Addl. District and Special Judge, Ballari and the same is rejected by order dated 10.06.2020. Therefore, the petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking bail. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned HCGP for respondent-State. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that the victim girl is aged more than 16 years and on looking to the entire charge sheet materials there was a love affair between the petitioneraccused and the victim girl. It is his further submission that even though petitioner traveled in public transport like Bus and Train, victim girl did not make hue and cry and the same shows that she voluntarily went with the petitioner-accused. It is his further submission that victim girl is aged more than 16 years and she is having knowledge and understanding of the consequences of her acts. It is his further submission that medical certificates of the victim girl as well as of petitioner-accused reveal no external injuries over their body and the same rules out the fact of forcible sexual intercourse. It is his further submission that petitioner is aged 24 years ad if he is not granted bail, he will come in contact with hardened criminals in the jail. It is his further submission that investigation is over, charge sheet has been filed and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused is not necessary and petitioner-accused is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. With this he prayed to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP contended that the charge sheet materials prima facie show that involvement of the accused and commission of the offences alleged against him. It is his further submission that the statement of victim girl recorded by the Police itself goes to show that there is forcible sexual intercourse. It is his further submission that if the petitioner-accused is granted with bail, he will tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he prays to reject the bail petition. 6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and the learned HCGP, this Court has gone through charge sheet records. It is his further submission that if the petitioner-accused is granted with bail, he will tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he prays to reject the bail petition. 6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and the learned HCGP, this Court has gone through charge sheet records. As per the statement of the victim girl, she traveled along with the petitioner-accused from Ballari to Ananthpur in bus and from Ananthpur to Tirupathi by train. Even though the victim girl has traveled in public transport, she did not make any hue and cry and the very said act goes to show that the victim girl has voluntarily went along with the petitioner-accused. Even though, the forcible sexual assault is alleged there are no external injuries over the body of the victim girl or on the body of the petitioneraccused as per medical examination report. 7. It is well settled that matters to be considered in an application for bail are: "(i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses, may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused." 8. In a decision in the case of DATARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARA PRADESH AND ANOTHER, (2018) 3 SCC 22 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. In a decision in the case of DATARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARA PRADESH AND ANOTHER, (2018) 3 SCC 22 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society." 9. In the present case the investigation is completed. Charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner is aged 24 years and there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner-accused. If the petitioner-accused is detained in prison, he will come in contact with the hardened criminals. The petitioner-accused is residing in the address shown in the cause title and it is not disputed. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of grant of bail, the petitioner-accused is likely to cause threat to the complainant and prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing some stringent conditions. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that there are valid grounds for grant of bail subject to conditions. Hence, I pass the following. ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner-accused shall be released on bail in Crime No.134/2019 of Sirigere Police Station, Ballari subject to the following conditions. i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh rupees only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. In view of Covid-19 petitioner is permitted to furnish surety within two months. i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh rupees only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. In view of Covid-19 petitioner is permitted to furnish surety within two months. If circumstances arise, jurisdictional court is permitted to extend the time for furnishing surety. ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses in any manner. iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Court regularly and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.