Karnataka High Court
Mallesh S/O Dadda Hanumantha Nayak vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 April, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200439/2017
Between:
Mallesh
S/o Dadda Hanumantha Nayak
Age: 25 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Sunkeshwar Village
Tq. Manvi, Dist. Raichur
... Petitioner
(By Sri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka
R/by Addl. SPP Kalaburagi Bench
(Through Manvi P.S.
Dist. Raichur)
... Respondent
(By Sri Sheshadri Jaishankar, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.62/2017 of Manvi Police Station, Raichur, which is
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376,
417, 506 of IPC.
This petition is coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following:-
2
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.62/2017 of Manvi Police Station, Raichur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417, 506 of IPC.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, the victim was brought up in the house of elder aunt Basamma, she was studying PUC and was going from Sikal village to Manvi in a bus and at that time accused-petitioner was working as temporary driver of the said bus. When she used to travel in the said bus, they developed acquaintance with each other. Thereafter, accused told her that he is in love with her and he is going to marry her, at that time, the victim girl told the accused to behave properly as in the society the people will mistake her and her future is going to be affected. Thereafter, accused threatened her that he 3 will not allow her to marry anybody, as such intimacy developed. He also gave her criminal intimidation by stating that he will finish her if she discloses the matter to her family members, hence, she kept quiet. On 01.01.2014 petitioner-accused contacted over phone and summoned her to hillock to speak about wedding. When she refused, he threatened to commit suicide. Therefore, when she went there, accused with the contention that he is in love with her and he will marry her only, at that time against her will and without her permission had forcible sexual intercourse with her and also threatened her not to disclose the matter to anybody and also threatened her that as and when he summons her, she should come and if she does not come, he will damage her reputation. In this background, he had sexual contact with her about 3-4 times. Later, he refused to marry her. As such, complaint came to be filed and accused is in custody. 4
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State.
4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner is innocent and he has not involved in any such affairs. It is also contended that it was a love affair between the victim and the accused. Accused was intending to marry her, as such, intimacy developed and the victim was major, aged about 21 years and with the consent, the accused was having intercourse with her. He would also contend that the ingredients of Section 376 of IPC are not attracted and at the most provision of Section 420 are attracted. He would also contend that the marriage talks are going on between the accused and the victim and they are belonging to the same community. He would also contend that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and he is 5 ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition.
5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently contended that accused-petitioner by falsely promising the victim that he is going to marry threatened her and thereafter he had sexual assault on her. He would also contend that when the victim refused, he also threatened that he is going to commit suicide, as such, she went there, at that time accused- petitioner had forcible sexual assault on her. He would also contend that accused-petitioner has committed serious offence against the victim, as such, accused - petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. I have gone through the copy of the FIR, complaint and other material produced along with the petition. It is admitted fact that intimacy was developed 6 between the accused and the victim when she was pursuing her education by travelling in the said bus in which accused was the driver. Subsequently, complaint reveals that accused called her and told her he is going to marry and on 01.01.2014 he contacted and summoned the victim to the hillock to speak about the wedding, at that time threatened to commit suicide and thereafter he sexually assaulted her against her will. Even statement which has been recorded on 23.02.2017, it indicates that on 01.01.2014 he had sexual intercourse with the victim by threatening her. Though learned counsel for the accused-petitioner would contend that the provisions of 376 are not attracted, at the most the provision of 420 is going to be attracted. But that is the matter, which has to be considered and appreciated at the time of trial and that too after completion of the evidence, at this premature stage it cannot be held that the offences falls under Section 420 of IPC. When the accused who was working 7 as a driver in public bus, at that time if he develops intimacy by playing fraud and cheating the victim and had intercourse with her, then provisions of Section 376 are attracted and as such it is considered to be serious offence. Though it is submitted that the marriage talks are going on between the parties but that will not be a good ground to consider for the purpose of bail at this juncture. Hence, the petition stands dismissed.
Since the accused-petitioner is in custody, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the charge sheet was not available while filing the bail petition, now he has come to know that charge sheet has been filed, if he wants to move the bail application on different grounds, liberty is given to file bail application before the jurisdictional Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE sdu