Karnataka High Court
Husain S/O Imam Sab vs The State By Circle Inspector Of Police on 11 July, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Dated this the 11th day of July 2017
Before
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
Criminal Petition No.101202/2017
BETWEEN
HUSSAIN, S/O IMAM SAB,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: J.J. NAGAR, H.B.HALLI,
DIST: BALLARI. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B. CHIDANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE,
BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI CIRCLE,
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, DIST: BALLARI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN SPECIAL CASE NO. 145 OF 2016, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE C/C I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BALLARI, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 366, 376 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 4 AND 6
OF THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL
2
OFFENCES ACT 2012 INITIATED BY H.B.HALLI POLICE IN
CRIME NO.161 OF 2016.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered in respondent-Police Station Crime No.161/2016, now pending in S.C. No.145/2016 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Ballari.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the father of the victim girl lodged a complaint alleging that the eldest daughter by name Parveen is aged about 15 years, and that the petitioner came in contact with her daughter often and he was chit-chatting with her. After 3 seeing this, the complainant advised the petitioner. On 22.09.2016, at about 6.00 a.m., his daughter had gone to answer the nature's call, but did not come back. Complainant and his wife searched for some time, but their daughter was not found anywhere and suspecting they went to the house of the petitioner and enquired, but the petitioner was also not found in the house. Complainant suspected that the petitioner might have taken away his daughter to some other place. From 22.09.2016 to 04.10.2016 they were not traced out. On 04.10.2016, when he learnt that his daughter was brought back by the petitioner, the complainant enquired his daughter and she told about the sexual assault on her by the petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered for the said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the 4 learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made the submission that sofar as the age of the victim girl is concerned, there is no consistency. As per the case of the prosecution, father of the victim girl has mentioned the age of the victim girl as 15 years, whereas the medical records show that she was aged 16 years and the school certificate goes to show the age of the victim girl as 13 years, and further, the victim girl, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., has mentioned that she is 17 years old. Hence, he submitted that looking to the statement of the victim girl herself, which she has given on oath before the JMFC Court, she has clearly stated that she went with the accused person on her own and this goes to show that the allegations made in the complaint that the petitioner kidnapped the girl prima facie is not 5 supported by the material. Hence, the petitioner may be granted with bail.
5. At this stage, looking to the statement of the victim girl made before the JMFC Court, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a case about his non-involvement in committing the alleged offences. The petitioner has mentioned in the bail petition that he has been falsely implicated in the case and that he is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Now, the investigation of the case is completed and chargesheet is also filed. Hence, by imposing reasonable condition, the petitioner can be admitted to regular bail.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail of the aforesaid offences registered in respondent-police station Crime No.161/2016, now pending in S.C. No.145/2016 on the 6 file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Ballari., subject to following conditions:
i) Petitioner has to execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of concerned Court.
ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iii) Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kms