Karnataka High Court
Nagendra @ Naga, vs State By Tarikere Police, on 20 August, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1667
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3399/2020
BETWEEN:
NAGENDRA @ NAGA,
S/O SANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
BOMMENAHALLY VILLAGE,
TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY TARIKERE POLICE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101.
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.73/2019 OF TARIKERE TOWN P.S., CHIKKAMAGALURU FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 354-B, 366,
376(2)(i)(n), (3), 506 AND 201 OF IPC, SECTION 5(L), 6, 14(3) OF
POCSO ACT AND SECTION 66(E) OF I.T ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.73/2019 of Tarikere Town Police Station, Chikkamagaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354-B, 366, 376(2)(i)(n), (3), 506 and 201 of IPC, Section 5(L), 6, 14(3) of POCSO Act and Section 66(E) of I.T Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the victim girl, who is aged about 14 years was subjected to sexual act by the petitioner by taking her to a unknown place and giving the juice, which was intoxicated. Thereafter, she lost her conscious and when she regained her conscious, she was in a nude position. When she enquired the petitioner, he told that he committed rape on her and has recorded the same in his mobile and threatened her to give consent for continuous sex and if she refused to do so, he will upload the nude photos in facebook and whatsapp. It is also the allegation that he used to take her to the 3 very same place frequently once in 2-3 days and was committing the sexual act. That on 13.03.2019, he took her to Mysore and made her to sit in the railway station, but he did not return and someone enquired her and sent her back to her house. The said fact was also informed by one Manju, who is the relative of the complainant. Thereafter, the complaint is lodged against the petitioner. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that date is not specifically mentioned with regard to the alleged rape on the victim girl. The learned counsel would contend that 164 statement of the victim girl was recorded and in the 164 statement she has not complained anything about she being subjected to rape. But she states that the petitioner threatened her that he will upload the nude photos in facebook and whatsapp and used to take her to very same place causing threat to her. It is also the contention that the medical report does not suggest anything about recent sexual act and there are no injuries. The petitioner is in custody for the 4 last 1½ years and evidence is not yet commenced. There is no prima facie case to believe the case of the prosecution and hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would contend that the petitioner took the victim girl to a lonely place and administered the juice, which contained the intoxication and subjected her for sexual act and he continuously had sexual act with the minor girl, who is aged about 14 years. He would also submit that the final opinion of the doctor is that history is suggestive of sexual violence and the same cannot be ruled out. It is also mentioned that there is no evidence suggestive of recent sexual violence. He would also contend that the victim girl was subjected to sexual act on different date and the complaint is very clear that the first incident was taken place four months ago. Thereafter, the petitioner causing threat to the victim girl that he would upload her nude photos in facebook and whatsapp, used to have sexual intercourse with the victim girl. Hence, there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and he cannot be enlarged on bail. 5
6. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and having considered the material available on record i.e., averment of the complaint and 164 statement, no doubt in 164 statement dated 22.03.2019, the victim girl has not stated anything with regard to sexual act, but she categorically says that after administering the intoxicated juice, she lost her conscious and thereafter she does not know what happened, but the petitioner has taken nude photos and showed the same in his mobile causing threat to her. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the victim girl is aged about 14 years and specific allegation is made in the complaint as well as in the 164 statement with regard to the act of the petitioner and medical reports discloses that it is suggestive of sexual violence, but no injuries. The Court also cannot expect the injuries when the victim girl has lost her conscious as a result of administering intoxicated juice. When the specific allegation is made and the medical report suggests that she was subjected to sexual violence and that too on a minor girl who is aged abut 14 years and subjected her for continuous sexual act threatening 6 her that he would upload the nude photos in the facebook and whatsapp, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody for the last 1½ years is not a ground when the prima facie material discloses with regard to the sexual act against the minor girl. Hence, it is not a fit case to grant the relief as sought.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner is at liberty to move the bail petition before this Court after the examination of the victim girl.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD