Karnataka High Court
Sri Imran Khan vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 February, 2019
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7910 /2018
BETWEEN :
Sri Imran Khan
S/o Ibrahimulla Khan @ Nawab
Aged about 21 years
Auto Driver, 1st Main Road, 1st Cross,
Near Madeena Masjid,
Shahinshanagar, Kolar-563 101.
... Petitioner
(By Sri M.R. Nanjunda Gowda, Advocate)
AND :
The State of Karnataka
by Kolar Women Police Station, Kolar,
Represented by State Public prosecutor
High Court Buildings
Bengaluru-560 001.
... Respondent
(By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.02/2018 registered by Kolar Women Police Station,
Kolar, and in S.C.No.72/2018 on the file of II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Kolar for the offences
punishable under Sections 363, 366(A) and 376 of Indian
Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act.
-2-
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day,
the Court made the following:-
ORDER
This petition is filed by the accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to release him on bail in Special Case No.72/2018, arising out of Crime No.2/2018 of Kolar Women Police Station, on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent- State.
3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed a bail application in Criminal Petition No.3993/2018 before this Court. This Court while dismissing the said petition, had given liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail -3- soon after the examination of the victim before the trial Court and as such he has now preferred this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the evidence of the victim clearly goes to show that she has not been sexually assaulted by the petitioner. During the course of cross-examination, she has admitted the fact that the accused has not forced her for sexual act and she herself voluntarily gone along with him. He further submitted that the petitioner and the victim were acquainted with each other and even when she was taken to various places, there was no resistance by her which clearly goes to show that she was not taken by the petitioner forcefully and there was no sexual assault by him as against her will. He further submitted that the petitioner has got two minor children and his father is suffering from paralysis and without his fault, he has been suffering since one year behind the bars. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by -4- any conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that if the evidence of the victim in its entirety is looked into, it clearly goes to show that the petitioner has forcefully taken her and in his friend's house he sexually assaulted her. She further submitted that at the time of the alleged incident, the victim was minor and she was not able to give consent. Though she has given consent, it is not a consent at all. She further submitted that there is prima facie material as against the petitioner to show that he has sexually assaulted the victim. She further submitted that even the medical records corroborate the evidence of the victim. Hence, the petitioner has not made out any good grounds to release him on bail. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
-5-
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. The victim came to be examined before the trial Court on 4.9.2018. On close reading of her evidence it indicates that in the examination-in-chief, she has stated that the accused took her to his friend's house, where she has been sexually assaulted by him. But in the cross-examination, she has admitted that she has not been sexually assaulted by the accused. It is alleged that she was 14 to 16 years at the time of incident. Appreciation of the evidence of the victim is a matter which has been left out to the trial Court. At this juncture, it cannot be held that the accused-petitioner has made out a case to release him on bail and even though this Court had given liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court soon after examination of the victim, I feel that it is not just and proper to release the -6- petitioner on bail. At this juncture, by holding that the evidence of the victim is not sustainable and if the said evidence is appreciated it is going to hamper the merits of the case at the final stage. In that light, petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
Accordingly, petition stands dismissed. However, the trial Court which has already recorded the evidence of the victim is directed to expedite the trial.
Sd/-
JUDGE *ck/-