Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1756 (KAR)

Krishna v. State Of Karnataka

2020-09-08

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.22/2019 of Koppal Women Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that Smt. Meenakshi W/o Late Raju Patil lodged her complaint before the Koppal Women Police Station in Crime No.22/2019, on 10.12.2019, against an unknown person for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC alleging that on 02.12.2019 at about 9 a.m. her daughter victim girl aged about 17 years who was studying in 1st year PUC Pre- Degree Mahila College, Koppal went to the college stating that she would go to the college. However, she did not return home at 2 p.m. Hence, the complainant went to the college and enquired with her friends who informed the complainant that her daughter victim girl had not come to college on that day. The complainant enquired and searched for her, at Railway station and Bus stand. But she could not trace her. Therefore the complainant lodged the complaint alleging that her daughter was found missing between 9.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m on 02.12.2019 and some might have kidnapped her for some purpose. On 16.12.2019 the Women Police Station Koppal traced the victim girl along with the petitioner-accused at Koppal Budugumpa Cross. The victim girl gave written statement and stated that petitioner who was residing in front of her house was coming to her house and the petitioner was saying that he would marry her and the victim girl told that she is minor. The petitioner used to follow victim girl stating that they would go to some where and they would marry and he used to drag her hand. On 02.12.2019 at about 9.00 a.m. victim girl was going to college. At that time the petitioner came there and the petitioner forcibly took her to Bus stand and then near Gali Durgamma Temple which is near Kalyani factory, the petitioner had physical contact with her during night time. During day time used to go to Munirabad and return to near Gali Durgamma Temple during night and the accused had physical contact with victim girl. Victim girl told the accused to take her to her home. During day time used to go to Munirabad and return to near Gali Durgamma Temple during night and the accused had physical contact with victim girl. Victim girl told the accused to take her to her home. While the petitioner was taking to her to her home and when they were near Budagumpa Cross, the Police took them to Women Police Station, Koppal where in victim girl gave her written statement. The Police Inspector, Women Police Station filed charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. The petitioner was produced before the Court on 17.12.2019 and he was remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner filed bail application and the same came to be rejected by Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Koppal by order dated 18.06.2020. 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 gave statement before Police on 16.12.2019 and 19.12.2019 and before Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 19.12.2019. There are inconsistencies in all the three statements. It is his further submission that the victim girl was missing since 02.12.2019 and complaint came to be registered on 10.12.2019 and there is a delay of eight days in filing the complaint. It is his further submission that medical certificate of the victim and petitioneraccused shows no external injuries over their body. 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. It is his further submission that petitioner is having a mother and he was the only earning member of the family and petitioneraccused 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 victim girl is aged 16 years 6 months as on the date of incident and her date of birth is 14.06.2003. It is her further submission that in the statement before the Police and before the Judicial Magistrate, the victim girl has specifically stated regarding physical contact between herself and the petitioner-accused. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP contended that victim girl is aged 16 years 6 months as on the date of incident and her date of birth is 14.06.2003. It is her further submission that in the statement before the Police and before the Judicial Magistrate, the victim girl has specifically stated regarding physical contact between herself and the petitioner-accused. It is her further submission that if the petitioner-accused is granted with bail, he will tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, she 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. On looking to all the three statements of the victim girl, it is clear that she is having love affair with the petitioneraccused. Victim girl is not alleged any forcible sexual intercourse in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and statement recorded before the Police on 16.12.2019. But, only stated that she had only physical contact with the petitioner-accused. Medical examination report of the petitioner and the victim girl reveals no external injuries over the body of the petitioner-accused and on victim which goes to show that there is no forcible sexual intercourse has taken place. Even though, victim girl was with petitioner-accused for 14 days and traveled to different places has not made any hue and cry goes to show that she voluntarily went with the petitioner-accused. The victim girl is aged 16 years 6 months as on the date of offence and she is of the age of understanding the consequences of her acts. 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. 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 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.22/2019 of Koppal Women Police Station, 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, the 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.