Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 955 (KAR)

Madhu v. State Of Karnataka

2020-06-03

NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking grant of regular bail in Crime No.51/2020 registered by the respondent-police for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 376 and 420 of IPC pending trial before the II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. 2. It is seen from the report of the complainant dated 24.03.2020 to the respondent police that she befriended the accused in the year 2007 and fell in love. She claimed that the petitioner/accused had sexually assaulted her when she was a minor. She alleged that in order to terminate her pregnancy, the accused/petitioner had forced her to consume tablets. Further she alleged that the petitioner had extracted Rs.5,00,000/- from her, to meet his family needs. She further alleged that the petitioner used to take her to his sisters house when there werent anyone in the house and sexually assaulted her. Further she accused that the petitioner/accused raped her twice during 2017. Again she became pregnant, he forced the complainant to consume tablets and terminated the pregnancy. She stated that she and her mother compelled the petitioner to marry the complainant, which he refused. In that regard, the complainant had earlier lodged a statement with the police in respect of which NCR 18/2020 was registered. She alleged that though the petitioner and his relatives had agreed to solemnize her marriage with the petitioner, yet he later withdrew from the commitment and threatened to kill the complainant if she insisted that the petitioner should marry her. Based on this, the respondent registered Cr.No.51/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 506 IPC. 3. It is seen from the report lodged by the complainant before the respondent-police on 17.01.2020 that the complainant and the petitioner were in love with each other since the last 13 years and that the petitioner had promised to marry the complainant and from the last few days, the petitioner had not contacted the complainant with an intention to marry another girl. Thus, complainant requested respondent-police to direct the petitioner to marry the complainant. Respondent-police based on such complaint registered NCR 18/2020. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice that the complainant had earlier lodged a compliant on 17.01.2020 which she later withdrew on 20.01.2020. Thus, complainant requested respondent-police to direct the petitioner to marry the complainant. Respondent-police based on such complaint registered NCR 18/2020. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice that the complainant had earlier lodged a compliant on 17.01.2020 which she later withdrew on 20.01.2020. Following the above, she again lodged the present complaint accusing petitioner of sexual assault when she was minor and that she had undergone termination of her pregnancy on two occasions. She also mentioned that petitioner accompanied her to his sisters house wherein he continued to sexually assault her. The alleged sexual assault had taken place in the year 2017. She stated to have terminated her pregnancy in January 2017. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that the respondent-police have failed to file the charge sheet within 60 days despite statutory requirement under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel would also contend that in view of the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam reported in (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 401 , respondent failed to file the charge sheet within 60 days and hence his continuation in prison is not justified and that in view of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. he is entitled for statutory bail. He would also contend that in view of the judgment of the Honble Apex Court, the Court is entitled to consider the request for statutory bail on mere mentioning of the fact that the respondent has failed to file the charge sheet. 6. Learned HCGP would submit that the offence relates back to the date when the complainant was a minor and the offences are under Sections 376 and 420 of IPC. Learned HCGP would also contend that there are documents which are placed on record which indicate that the complainant had undergone termination of pregnancy and therefore, enlarging the petitioner on bail would embolden the petitioner to tamper with the witnesses of the prosecution. 7. It is seen from the statement of the complainant lodged before the respondent-police that the complainant was aged about 25 years. The allegations of sexual assault was when she was a minor and the allegation of rape was in the year 2017. The case of the complainant is extremely wavering and this cannot be a ground to keep the petitioner behind bars. 8. The allegations of sexual assault was when she was a minor and the allegation of rape was in the year 2017. The case of the complainant is extremely wavering and this cannot be a ground to keep the petitioner behind bars. 8. Since the complaint is filed after inordinate delay and there being no explanation for the delay more particularly about the incident which had taken place in the year 2017, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. Hence, the following order: Petition is allowed. Petitioner is granted bail in Crime No.51/2020 registered by the respondent/police which is pending trial before the II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall furnish one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court along with personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. (ii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 10.30 A.M. and 5.00 P.M. He shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in conclusion of the investigation. (iii) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses. (iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the trial court. Registry is to directed to communicate this order to the Jail authorities.