Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 493 (KAR)

Ramesh v. State Of Karnataka

2020-02-19

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner-accused is before this court seeking to be enlarged on regular bail in Spl Case No.49/2019 dated 13.11.2019 on the file of Special Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar by allowing the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Section 376, 363, and 506 of IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Kumta P.S. Crime No.128/2019. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is residing with his daughter and son in Kumata. The daughter was pursuing Pre-university education. On 24.06.2019 in the afternoon when he was at home, his daughter had been to collect wood and she suffered snake bite and as such he took her to Kumta Hospital for treatment. In the morning on 25.06.2019 his daughter complained of stomach and backache and when he informed the doctor, doctor conducted a test and found that she is nine months pregnant and in the evening at 07.00 p.m. she delivered a male baby and when he enquired with his daughter, she stated that before two years back she came in contact with one Ramesh S.L. of Haveri-Hangal area, they became friends and thereafter, he instigated her to eat bakery items and took her in his car and brought her to his rented house and he made her to sit on the cot and when she denied him sexual intercourse, forcibly he had a sexual intercourse with her, and repeated the same with her for 5-6 times and when she informed him regarding her pregnancy he threatened her not to disclose before anybody and therefore, the complainant filed the above complaint. Based on the above said complaint registered in Crime No.128/2019 as stated above was registered. The Police after investigation filed the charge sheet. 3. The petitioner had approached the Special Judge, Uttara Kannada in Spl.Case No.49/2019 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., which came to be rejected vide court order dated 13.11.2019 on the ground that the complainants daughter was minor as on the date of alleged assault, there was prima facie case as against the accused. If the petitioner is enlarged on regular bail, there is every possibility of destruction in prosecution evidence or threatening all prosecution witnesses. 4. If the petitioner is enlarged on regular bail, there is every possibility of destruction in prosecution evidence or threatening all prosecution witnesses. 4. The petitioner is before this court contending that the petitioner was arrested on 27.06.2019 and has been in judicial custody since then. The investigation having been completed and charge sheet having been filed, there is no danger of the petitioner tampering with the prosecution witnesses or evidence. Further more, the learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the complaint was filed after the delivery of the baby and the reasons for admitting the victim to the hospital is stated to be a snake bite. These facts and allegations made by the complainant against the accused would not indicate any offences committed by the petitioner. But, on the contra would show that the allegations made against the petitioner are got up and only to frame the petition. 5. Learned HCGP would oppose the grant of bail in the above matter on the ground that the complainant on the basis of the information received from the daughter he lodged a complaint. There is prima facie case made out. Admittedly, the complainants daughter is minor in age. Hence, all the provisions that the accused has been charge sheeted with, are prima facie established. 6. Heard Sri. Shriharsha A. Neelopanth, counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP. Perused the documents. 7. There is some force and merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in that, the complaint has been filed after the birth of the baby. There is no complaint, which has been filed prior to that incident by either the complainant or his daughter. There was no issues raised. Complainants daughter is aged about 17 years as on the date of filing of the complaint. The complainants daughter and petitioner were known to each other. If at all, there had been any offence committed, the complaint would have been filed much earlier. The entire story is not believable, in that it is stated that complainant took his daughter to the hospital for treatment for snake bite. The complaint does not disclose if the complainant knew about his daughter been pregnant on that day or not. If at all, there had been any offence committed, the complaint would have been filed much earlier. The entire story is not believable, in that it is stated that complainant took his daughter to the hospital for treatment for snake bite. The complaint does not disclose if the complainant knew about his daughter been pregnant on that day or not. There being several inconsistencies in the statements made, the investigation having been completed and charge sheet having been filed, this would not be a fit case for continuing the detention of the petitioner in judicial custody. Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion that the accused ought to be released on bail with stringent conditions. Hence, 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 Crime No.128/2019 (Special Case No.49/2019) of Kumta Police Station, Kumta Circle, Uttara Kannada District for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 363, and 506 of IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh 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. 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.