Karnataka High Court
S P Lokesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1122 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
S.P.LOKESH
S/O.PARAMESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT.SHANKARAHALLI KOPPALU
KASABA HOBLI
ARASIKERE TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 56.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRATHEEP K.C.,ADV.,)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ARASIKERE RURAL POLICE STATION
HASSAN DISTRICT
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE -01.
... 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 CRIME NO.133/12 OF ARASIKERE RURAL P.S.,
HASSAN, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 323, 506, 363, 376
R/W. SEC.511 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1) (XII) OF SC / ST (POA)
ACT, 1989.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This is the petition filed by the petitioner - accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506, 363, 376 and 511 of IPC r/w.Section 3(1) (XII) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered by the respondent -in Crime No.133/2012.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - accused and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument submitted that there are no materials placed to show that the petitioner committed the alleged offence under Section 376 of IPC. Counsel made the submission that according to the allegations 3 made in the complaint and statement of even victim girl goes to show that at the most it is a case for outraging modesty and it is not a case under Section 376 of IPC. Counsel further made the submission that looking to the injury certificate, the doctor gave the opinion that there were no external injuries noticed on the person of the victim girl and also the mother of the victim girl. Hence, he made the submission that since from the date of arrest, petitioner is in custody. By imposing reasonable conditions, he may be admitted to bail.
4. As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that looking to the statement of victim girl, it goes to show that the petitioner committed the offence even under Section 376 of IPC and hence, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, order passed by the lower 4 Court and other materials placed on record. Looking to the statement of witness - Uma Bai, the victim in her further statement recorded on 16-10-2012, she has stated that on 16-07-2012, when she gave the statement before the Sub Inspector, she was shown one person and he was the same person who on the previous night threatened her and kicked her mother and drawn her to the lorry and dragged her to the forest area and made an attempt to commit rape on her. So further statement of the victim itself goes to show that the petitioner made an attempt to commit rape and there is no statement of the victim girl that he had forcible sexual intercourse on her. As it is rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the materials on record collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation prima-facie goes to show that the offence alleged under Section 376 of IPC is not attracted and at the most the offence for outraging modesty will be attracted in the present case. The petitioner in his bail petition has contended that he 5 is innocent and not at all involved in the commission of the alleged offences and he is ready to abide by any of the reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. Therefore, looking to the materials on record and as it is observed that there is no prima-facie material to show the alleged offence under Section 376 of IPC, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner, by imposing some stringent conditions.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner - accused is ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506, 363, 376 and 511 of IPC r/w.Section 3(1) (XII) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered by the respondent - police in Crime No.133/2012, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-6
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;
(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE VMB