Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 492 (KAR)

Basavaraj v. State

2020-02-19

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner before this court is seeking to be enlarged on bail in Spl.SC/ST No.39/2019 registered in C.C.No.45/2019, Haveri Women Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) under Sections 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 r/w Sec.3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(Va) of ST/ST (Prevention Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on complaint by one Hanumanthappa Govindappanavar on 14.09.2019 a case for the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC came to be registered in Crime No.45/2019 on the ground that his daughter was missing. Later he suspected somebody might have kidnapped and requested for necessary action to be taken. On 13.09.2019, the complaint Police sought permission from the jurisdictional Judge to modify the earlier FIR by inserting offences under Sections 376(3) (N) of IPC, Section 6, 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 r/w Section 3(1)(W)(1) and (2), 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST PA Act, 2015 and produced the accused/petitioner with a remand application contending that the petitioner had kidnapped the daughter of the informant on 14.09.2019 taken her in his car to Sikaripur and Ramagiri and committed the offence of rape on her continuously against her will with a false promise of marrying her. The complaint Police arrested the petitioner when he was in the company of informants daughter in Ramagiri and produced the petitioner in the above matter after handling over the girl to the informant. 3. The petitioner-accused has been in judicial custody since 14.09.2019. The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri in Crl.Misc. No.789/2019, which came to be rejected by the said court vide its order dated 17.12.2019 on the ground that the petitioner had committed offences against minor girl which are serious in nature and if the petitioner were to be enlarged on bail, there is possibility of the petitioner contacting the victim, threatening the victim or tampering with other prosecution witnesses. 4. Sri Prakash Badiger, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the remand, the trial in the above proceedings have commenced. 4. Sri Prakash Badiger, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the remand, the trial in the above proceedings have commenced. The victim has deposed in the matter and during her deposition and cross-examination, the alleged victim has categorically stated that no such offence as alleged has taken place and therefore from the evidence of the complainant as also the victim in the said matter, it is prima facie apparent that no such offence has been committed. Hence, there would be no purpose served by the petitioner being continued in judicial custody. 5. Learned HCGP opposes the above application contending that the trial is yet to conclude and the mere fact that the complainant and or the victim have not supported the case of the prosecution would not entitle the petitioner for bail and there are other witnesses who will be examined in the matter. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent and perused the papers. 7. A perusal of the cross-examination the complaint and the victim in Spl.SC/ST No.39/2019 would indicate that neither the complainant nor the victim has supported the case of the prosecution, in fact the entire incident has been more or less denied. In the above circumstances, the continuance of the petitioner in judicial custody would serve no purpose more so when the reason for the earlier refusal was on the ground that the petitioner could influence the complainant and or the victim. The evidence of the complainant and the victim having been revealed those reasons would no longer survive. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The evidence of the complainant and the victim having been revealed those reasons would no longer survive. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Spl.SC/ST No.39/2019 registered in C.C.No.45/2019, Haveri Women Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) under Sections 6, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 r/w Sec.3(1) (w)(i)(ii), 3(2) (Va) of ST/ST (Prevention Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court; (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Committal Court on every date of hearing; (iii) The petitioner shall co-operate in the conclusion of the trial in the said proceedings. (iv) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witness/s in any manner. (v) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission, till the case registered her is disposed of. (vi) The petitioner shall furnish a list of immovable properties owned by him to the police station. (vii) If any of the above conditions are violated the above order 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.