Karnataka High Court
Sri. Prasanna Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 10 July, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2991/2020
BETWEEN:
SRI PRASANNA KUMAR
S/O LATE SUNDARAPPA
AGED 31 YEARS
R/AT MANIYANAHALLI VILLAGE
VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ASHOK B PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY:SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VEMGAL POLICE STATION
KOLAR TQ:
DIST:KOLAR - 563 157
REPT:BY SSP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN CR.No.83/2020 OF VEMAGAL P.S., KOLAR
DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 4, 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SECTION 420, 114, 34,
376 OF IPC.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE AT
BENGALURU MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This matter is taken up through Video Conference today. Learned counsel Sri. Ashok B. Patil for petitioner and Sri. K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for respondent are present.
2. The petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.83/2020 registered by the respondent- Police for the offence punishable under Sections 420 114, 34 and 376 of IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar.
3. The date of complaint is 26-4-2020. Petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05-05-2020.
3
4. Previously, the petitioner had made application before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., in C.Crl.Misc.38/2020 and that came to be dismissed on 02-06-2020. Hence, this petition.
5. Copy of the petition is served on learned HCGP for respondent.
6. Heard.
7. The substance of the complaint dated 26-04-2020 registered in Crime No.83/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 114, 34 and 376 of IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 are: the complainant is the victim girl aged 17 years, daughter of one Muniraju, Maniyanahalli village, Madderi Post, Vemagal Hobli, Kolar Taluk. It is lodged against three persons, viz., (1) Prasanna Kumar (2) Ramaswamy and (3) Aleri Veerabhadraiah. 4 The petitioner before the court is accused No.1- Prasanna Kumar.
8. The complaint is stated to have been lodged at 8.30 p.m. on 26-04-2020 by victim, aged 17 years. Her date of birth is 28-4-2003. She is studying I PUC in New Government College for Girls, Kolar. Every day, when she was traveling from her place to Kolar to her college she came into contact with Prasanna Kumar son of Sundarappa, belonging to the same caste working in Vijaya Bank, Kolar. On the way to College and back for the past one year, the said Prasanna Kumar got familiar and on occasions she was traveling as a pillion rider on his motor cycle. Meanwhile, he had also informed the complainant that she loves her and wants to marry as well. In the guise of said promise, several times said Prasanna Kumar had sexual intercourse (rape) on her. It was on 29-03-2020 at about 4.30 p.m. he took the victim girl 5 to the house of Nandeesh son of Thikkappa and raped the victim in the bathroom of the aid house.
9. In the background of the said facts, on 26-04-2020, the accused Prasanna Kumar married one Pushpa at Kaiwara Temple and it was attended and supported by Ramaswamy and Veerabhadraiah. With this, FIR came to be registered in the Crime number stated above for the said offences against the present petitioner-Prasanna Kumar and two others viz., Ramaswamy and Veerabhadraiah. The earlier application moved before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge in C.Crl.Misc.No.38/2020 came to be rejected on 02-06-2020.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complainant has given inconsistent statements. It is a false complaint filed against the petitioner only to blackmail him. Learned counsel also submits that her complaint dated 26.4.2020 is 6 diagonally opposite to the statement said to have been made by her on 04-04-2020 and thus, reading the complaint in between the lines itself makes understandably clear that a false case is filed by the complainant.
11. Learned Government Pleader for respondent opposes the bail petition of the petitioner and submit that the victim is a minor. Any amount of mis-behaviour or sexual assault attract penal provisions of IPC and also POCSO Act. The petitioner has committed the sexual offence of highest order against a minor and he is not entitled to be released on bail.
12. The stage of the case as submitted by learned Government Pleader is, investigation is completed and final report is filed in Spl.CC No.16/2020. He would further submit statement 7 under Section 164 of Cr.p.C. is also recorded and victim has supported the prosecution case.
13. The complaint is lodged on 26-04-2020 stating that the victim was subjected to sexual assault by the petitioner. The complainant says for the past one year to the date 29-03-2020, the introduction, intimacy, promise to marry, close movement and ended with rape by the petitioner on her and again on 29-4-2020. Her place is Manianahalli village, Madderi Post, Vemagal Hobli. On 26-04-2020 petitioner married one Pushpa at Kairwara temple.
14. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently submitted that if there was a rape on the victim by the petitioner in the guise of developing acquaintance friendship and promise to marry and the related, why there was difference between the complaint dated 26-04-2020 and statement dated 18-06-2020. 8
15. The allegation is, petitioner had sexual intercourse without consent against the Will of the victim in as much as obtaining consent by plying on her under the guise of promise to marry her. The complainant is aged 17 years. The variation in the said two versions at this stage cannot be taken as material lapse in the prosecution case.
16. The learned Government Pleader submits statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is also recorded on 18-6-2020 and the victim has supported the prosecution case. I have perused the same. The victim also states that because of the said development and broken promise even she has consumed poison and police had enquired her in the hospital.
17. Prima facie, it is seen that the petitioner has made use of the innocence of the child victim. Further, the expression of the victim in the complaint does 9 appear to be natural. The status of the petitioner and opportunity appears to have been misused by him.
18. In the total facts and circumstances of the case, status of the petitioner as he is a bank employee being in judicial custody from 5.5.2020, completion of the investigation may not be of any avail to him to get the bail at this stage. The bail application is devoid of merits and the same is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE tsn*