Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 977 (KAR)

Sudeep @ Prajwal v. State of Karnataka

2022-07-28

P.N.DESAI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short), seeking to enlarge the petitioner, who is arraigned as accused, on bail in Crime No.4/2022 of Kudagi Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 342, 506 and 376 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavan Bagewadi. 02. It is the case of the prosecution that a complaint came to be filed by victim alleging that the petitioner was known to her and her family members. The petitioner has developed intimacy with the victim and taking undue advantage of intimacy, he called the victim over phone on 05.12.2021 at 02.30 p.m. to come near Muttagi cross and taken her forcibly on his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-28-K-8040 to Muddebihal. The petitioner has threatened to take her life. The petitioner stayed with victim in the house of his relatives and forcibly subjected the victim to sexual intercourse. In this regard, a complaint came to be filed on 10.01.2022. Thereafter, the jurisdictional police has transferred the FIR to the jurisdictional police, which came to be registered in Crime No.4/2022 on 19.01.2022. The petitioner was arrested on 21.01.2022. His bail petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. came to be dismissed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapura. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition. 03. Heard Sri. R. V. Bhavikatti, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 04. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that a false case has been filed against the petitioner. The petitioner and the victim are the relatives. There is a earlier proposal to give in marriage the victim with the petitioner. In view of age difference, he refused to marry the victim. The victim is married and having child. Just to take revenge and extract the money from the petitioner, a false case has been filed against him. He further argued that there is delay in lodging the FIR. The allegation that the victim was taken on motorcycle in day abroad light about 60 kms, cannot be believed at all. In the charge sheet accused Nos.2 to 4 have been dropped. The petitioner is younger than the complainant. Since, 21.01.2022 the petitioner was in judicial custody. He further argued that there is delay in lodging the FIR. The allegation that the victim was taken on motorcycle in day abroad light about 60 kms, cannot be believed at all. In the charge sheet accused Nos.2 to 4 have been dropped. The petitioner is younger than the complainant. Since, 21.01.2022 the petitioner was in judicial custody. The petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to offer surety. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 05. Against this, learned High Court Government Pleader argued that the offences are heinous in nature. The petitioner forcibly took the victim and subjected her to sexual intercourse against her will and wish. In such type of case, naturally there is no need to lodge complaint immediately after occurrence of incident. The police have already filed the charge sheet. The material placed before the Court shows that the petitioner had committed offences as alleged against them. Hence, he prays to reject the petition. 06. I have perused the FIR, police report and the statement. It is evident that the petitioner and the victim are the relatives. It is also evident that the petitioner used to come to victim's house and used to talk over phone. It is also evident that the victim went to Muttagi village on 02.12.2021 along with her uncle for Jatra festival. It is alleged that the petitioner called victim to come to Muttagi cross on 05.12.2021. She herself voluntarily went to Muttagi cross. According to the petitioner it is stated that the distance between Muttagi cross to Muddebihal is about 60 kms. Victim stated in complaint that the petitioner took her forcibly on his motorcycle for such long distance in broad day light, which requires some believable evidence. There is no medical evidence with regard to recent sexual intercourse as per the medical report. Offcourse, there is a delay in examination of the victim. There is also no such physical marks, so as to show as to whether there is any resistance. It is also evident that earlier the victim lodged the complaint stating that the incident has taken place in the house of relatives of the petitioner, where the family members were also present. She has lodged the complaint against other three persons wherein the police found that there is no truth in it. It is also evident that earlier the victim lodged the complaint stating that the incident has taken place in the house of relatives of the petitioner, where the family members were also present. She has lodged the complaint against other three persons wherein the police found that there is no truth in it. There is also statement to show that the petitioner demanded Rs.5,00,000/-. It is also evident that subsequently the victim changed her version stating that the incident had taken place on 07.01.2022 instead of 05.01.2022 as stated in FIR. Though the first complaint has been lodged after one month from the date of incident, further statement changes the date of incident. Admittedly, the victim is married women and having child. The investigation is already completed and charge-sheet has been filed. The petitioner is not required for investigation. The material placed before the Court are considered, in the light of the contentions of the petitioner, in view of the subsequent statement of the victim, medical report and other material, in my considered opinion the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 07. It is settled principle of law that bail is a rule and rejection is an exception. While granting or rejecting the bail application, the Court will have to take into consideration, (1) the nature and seriousness of the offence; (2) character of the accused; (3) circumstances which are peculiar to accused; (4) reasonable probabilities of presence of the accused not being secured at trial; (5) reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; and (6) larger interest of public or the state and similar other considerations, which arise when a Court is asked to admit the accused to bail in a non-bailable offence. 08. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of above principle, in my considered view the petitioner has made out sufficient ground to allow the petition. 09. The apprehension of the prosecution can be meted out by imposing reasonable conditions on the petitioner, as he has undertaken to co-operate with the investigation and furnish sureties. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The criminal petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner/accused Sudeep @ Prajwal s/o Basappa Myageri, in Crime No.04/2022 of Kudagi Police Station, on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapura, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 342. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The criminal petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner/accused Sudeep @ Prajwal s/o Basappa Myageri, in Crime No.04/2022 of Kudagi Police Station, on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapura, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 342. 506 and 376 of IPC, shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions. i) The petitioner shall execute a self bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. ii) The petitioner shall not try to tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. iii) The petitioner shall furnish proof of his residential correct address to the investigating officer and shall inform the Court/Investigating Officer if there is any change in the address. iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of Trial Court. v) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activities and shall not commit similar offences. vi) The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing without fail as and when directed. In case if any of the condition is violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail.