Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 478 (KAR)

Ramesh v. State Of Karnataka

2020-02-18

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with Mundagod P.S. Crime No.142/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)V, 3(1)W SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 376 and 448 of IPC, pending in Spl. Case No.77/2019 on the file of Special Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl had lodged a complaint on 22.08.2019 alleging that she was studying in SSLC. Her relative by name Ramesh, the accused herein was visiting her house frequently and whenever he meet the complainant, he told her that he was in love with her and intended to marry her. On 22.05.2019, when there was a holiday for school and she was at home and her family members have gone to Mundagod to attend a marriage, at about 3:00 p.m. she was alone in the home, the accused entered the home, sat near her and started speaking to her intimately and also started kissing her and by enticing her, took her to a bedroom and committed sexual assault promising that he will marry her. She did not disclose this fact to anybody at home. 3. In the month of June, when school reopened, she started staying at Navodaya School and she was not comfortable and she was feeling tired and getting vomiting. She informed the same to her sister Kamala and thereafter she has returned to her home and has informed about the incident. Her mother took her to a hospital at Sirsi. After examination, the Doctor informed that she was pregnant. Thereafter she was admitted to Government Hospital at Sirsi and the Doctors have disclosed that she was pregnant by three months. On these allegations, the above complaint was filed. The petitioner was arrested on 24.08.2019 and has been in judicial custody since then. 4. The petitioner filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar in Special Case No.77/2019 seeking for his release from judicial custody. The said Court vide order dated 9th December 2019 was pleased to dismiss the said application on the ground that there are direct materials against the petitioner for committing the sexual assault. The offences alleged against the accused are serious in nature. The said Court vide order dated 9th December 2019 was pleased to dismiss the said application on the ground that there are direct materials against the petitioner for committing the sexual assault. The offences alleged against the accused are serious in nature. The investigation was completed and the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer reveals sufficient grounds to show that there is prima facia materials against the accused to see that he had committed the offences that he was charged with. The Court having enquired with the victim that who is responsible for her pregnancy, but she kept silence. Hence the Special Court held that her silence speaks everything and that the accused and his people were threatening her therefore, the Court was of the belief that it was not a fit case to exercise the discretion of release of the accused on bail. 5. Shri R.H. Angadi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for his enlargement on bail contending that the victim is the relative of the petitioner and was intending to marry her, but her family members do not wish to do so. There was a dispute between two families, even though the victim was not intending to file a complaint, she was forced to give the complaint against the petitioner. Her statement on 25.11.2019 on the file of Special Court stating that the petitioner has not committed any offence and that her signature on the complaint was obtained forcibly establishes the above. The medical evidence also indicates that there are no injuries found on the victim. The petitioner has been in custody from 24.08.2019, the investigation has been completed, the accused has been interrogated and charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner states that he is the only bread earner of the family as also the bread earner of the family of the victim girl and both families are depending on his earning. He states that as per the medical report there is no recent sexual assault and therefore, it cannot be presumed or assumed that the petitioner has committed any assault. There being no material on record, Shri R.H. Angadi, learned counsel for the petitioner would states that the petitioner ought to be enlarged on bail. 6. He states that as per the medical report there is no recent sexual assault and therefore, it cannot be presumed or assumed that the petitioner has committed any assault. There being no material on record, Shri R.H. Angadi, learned counsel for the petitioner would states that the petitioner ought to be enlarged on bail. 6. Per contra, the learned HCGP would submit that the contention of the petitioner as regards the consent on the part of the victim and or is intending to marry her is of no avail, since the victim was 15 years age as on the date of assault. The petitioner has taken no doubt advantage of the victim and therefore, the petitioner ought not to be released on bail. 7. Heard Shri R.H. Angadi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent State. Perused the records. 8. From the records available insofar as the offence under POCSO and IPC are concerned, at this stage there does not appear to be any prima facie materials forthcoming, since the entire case is as regards the love and marriage proposal between the petitioner and the victim and there being no assault or injuries on the victim, the entire investigation is completed and charge sheet having been filed. No purpose would be served by continuance of the petitioner in judicial custody. 9. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for allowing the petition as filed and order for the enlargement of the petitioner-accused on bail in Mundagod P.S. Crime No.142/2019, subject to following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakhs only) with two local sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. (ii) The petitioner shall be regular in appearing before the trial Court on every date of hearing as also when called upon to do so by the trial Court. (iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and or any matter relating to the case of the prosecution. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without permission of the trial Court. (v) The petitioner shall submit a list of immovable properties said to be owned by the petitioner to the trial Court. (iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and or any matter relating to the case of the prosecution. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without permission of the trial Court. (v) The petitioner shall submit a list of immovable properties said to be owned by the petitioner to the trial Court. In the event of violation of any of the above terms, the above bail shall stand automatically cancelled. The observation made above is only for the purpose of consideration of the application for bail and the same shall not in any manner influence the trial. The trial Court shall dispose the case on merits without being influenced by this order. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.