Karnataka High Court
Ramappa vs State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8023/2018
Between:
1. Ramappa S/o. Pakkerappa
Aged about 43 years
Herurmane Village, Sorba Taluk,
Shivamogga District-577 413.
2. Megharaja S/o. Pakkerappa
Aged about 40 years
Herurmane Village,
Yennekopa Post, Sorba Taluk,
Shivamogga District-577 413.
3. Shivashankarappa S/o. Basappa Eligarmane
Aged about 55 years
Balavanthnakoppa, Sorba Taluk,
Shivamogga District-577 413. ... Petitioners
(By Sri. Diwakara K, Advocate)
And
State of Karnataka
By Sub Inspector of Police
Anavatti Police Station
Rep by State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore-560 001. ... Respondent
(By Sri K.P. Yoganna, HCGP)
2
This Criminal petition is filed u/s.438 Cr.P.C by the
Advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'ble court
may be pleased to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the
event of their arrest in Cr.No.238/2018 of Anavatti P.S.,
Shivamogga District for the offence p/u/s 376(2),506 r/w
34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day,
the court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in Crime No.238/2018 of Anavattii Police Station, Shivamogga District for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2) & 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader.
3. Learned HCGP has not filed objections but has orally opposed the bail application.
3
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petition in respect of petitioner No.1- accused No.1 is not pressed and has submitted arguments in respect of other accused persons.
5. The complaint averments are that on 18.09.2018 in the morning at about 10.a.m., accused No.1 Ramappa S/o. Fakeerappa had called the complainant - victim over his mobile phone to come to his land for coolie work. When complainant expressed her inability, accused No.1 came on his two wheeler and took the complainant on his way to the agricultural land. He pulled the complainant into Huruli forest and committed rape despite protest made by the victim-complainant. Thereafter, he had threatened that she would be killed if she disclose about the same to anyone. On account of this incident, on 21.09.2018, the complainant tried to consume kerosene with an intention to commit suicide. But immediately she was taken to Government Hospital, as a result of which, she survived. Thereafter, on 22.09.2018 , when the victim- 4 complainant was in the hospital, petitioner No.2, namely, Megharaj who is the younger brother of accused No.1 and petitioner No.3, who is maternal uncle of the accused No.1 came to the complainant and induced her to accept Rs.50,000/- . When the complainant did not agree for the offer, they have threatened to take away her life. On the basis of the complaint of the victim, the case was registered.
6. As could be seen from the complaint averments, the role played by two petitioners is that on 22.09.2018, they had gone to the hospital and offered Rs.50,000/- to the complainant to stop taking further action in the matter. When the complainant refused to the said offer, these petitioners have threatened to take away her life. Thus, it is evident that the allegations made in the complaint against these two petitioners are concerned, the ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 376(2) of IPC, are not attracted. However, it is a matter to be decided while framing the charge. At this stage, it is 5 needless to make elaborate discussion about the prosecution records as the same is not justified while considering the bail application.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is apprehension of petitioners regarding their arrest. Considering the nature of the allegations, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation may not be necessary regarding petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are concerned. The main objection of the learned HCGP is that in the event of granting bail, the petitioners are likely to interfere with the investigation. As such, objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions.
8. Considering the nature of the allegation against these petitioners and the grounds urged, the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
6
ORDER The criminal petition is allowed.
Petition in so far as petitioner No.1 is dismissed as not pressed.
Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are directed to appear before the I.O. within fifteen days from the date of receipt of copy of this bail order. On appearance of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3, the I.O. shall conduct the interrogation including search and seizure. After completion of the interrogation, the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:
(i) Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
each with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;
(ii) They shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when
required and co-operate with the
investigation;
(iii) They shall mark their attendance on every Monday before the I.O. till filing of the charge-sheet;
7
(iv) They shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses.
SD/-
JUDGE nms