Karnataka High Court
Sri.U. Nagaraj S/O Rudrappa vs State Of Karnataka, on 28 July, 2016
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100586/2016
BETWEEN:
SRI.U. NAGARAJ S/O RUDRAPPA,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KANDAGAL VILLAGE,
TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH KOTTUR POLICE STATION,
DIST: BALLARI,
NOW REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO
30/2016 BY THE RESPONDENT KOTTUR POLICE REGISTERED
FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
363, 366, 376, 114, R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, SECTIONS 4, 6 &
17 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES
ACT, AND SECTION 9 AND 11 OF CHILD MARRIAGE RESTRAINT
ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
ORDER
Heard Sri Srinand Pachhapure, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.
2. Petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.1 in Cr.No.30/2016 registered by Kottur police station for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 376, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC, Sections 4, 6 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Sections 9 and 11 of Child Marriage Restraint Act.
3. Sri Siddalingappa, father of Kum.Supriya lodged a complaint on 02.03.2016 at about 4 p.m. stating his daughter who had gone to Government College at 7 a.m. in the morning had not returned till evening and even after searching, they could not trace her. On registering the complaint in Cr.No.30/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the IPC, investigation was taken up and they traced the victim and the petitioner on 14.03.2016 at Hiriyuru bus stand and was brought to Kottur police station at 3 p.m. The victim girl made her :3: statement before the jurisdictional police station on 14.03.2016 stating that she had eloped with the petitioner on 02.03.2016 and after marrying the petitioner at Bengaluru, he had forcible sexual intercourse with her. Based on the said statement, jurisdictional police station registered Cr.No.30/2016 against petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 376, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC, Sections 4, 6 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and Section 9 and 11 of Child Marriage Restraint Act, as noticed hereinabove. Petitioner has been in judicial custody from the date of his arrest on 14.03.2016.
4. It is the contention of Mr.Srinand Pachchpure, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioner is a law abiding citizen and the statement made by the victim girl is contradictory and the victim girl is aged more than 18 years and petitioner had not kidnapped the victim girl i.e., the daughter of the complainant and the offence alleged against the petitioner is neither punishable with death or imprisonment of life and petitioner is ready and :4: willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. As such, he prays for petitioner being released on bail.
5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State by producing the records would seek for rejection of the bail petition contending interalia that no good ground is made out by the petitioner for being enlarged on bail. He would submit that medical evidence disclosed that victim girl was subjected to sexual intercourse and her date of birth as per the school records being 07.02.2000 and also the statement made before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. indicate that she was a minor and if accused is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and hamper the trial. Hence, he prays for rejection of the petition.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, it would emerge that victim girl has given a statement before the jurisdictional police on being brought from Hiriyuru to Kottur police station on 14.03.2016. A perusal of the said :5: statement made by the victim girl would indicate that she was studying in I PUC at Kottur Government College during March 2011 and on account of persistent requests made by the petitioner to accompany him to get married, she has stated that she eloped with him on 02.03.2016. The entire statement of the victim girl would indicate that at the first instance they went to the residence of one Mr.Srikanth and she had stayed with petitioner in the said house from 02.03.2016 to 04.03.2016. The said house of the Srikanth is located in a residential area. Victim girl also states that she had proceeded to Hiriyuru (Chitradurga district) on 04.03.2016 and stayed in the house of one Sri Rajanna till 14.03.2016. At no point of time, she has protested or made attempts to run away from the residence of the said Rajanna. This would suggest that she was voluntarily residing with petitioner without any force. However, in the statement recorded before the jurisdictional Magistrate she states that she was kidnapped by Sri Kotresh and Sri Mallikarjun whom she says had forced her to drink tea and it was drugged. However, such plea is not to be found in the statement :6: made on 14.03.2016 before Kottur police station on 14.03.2016 immediately after she was brought from Hiriyuru to Kottur. However, in the statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional Magistrate, she says she was confined in one of the rooms of Srikanth's house at Bengaluru which is not the stand taken by her in the statement made before the police earlier. This, contradictory statements made by the victim at this stage would enure to the benefit of the petitioner for being enlarged on bail, particularly in the background of a victim girl herself stating that she had eloped along with the petitioner on 02.03.2016. That apart, petitioner is also stated to be a relative of the victim girl. At this stage, the age of the petitioner based on the school records cannot be made the foundation to arrive at a conclusion that she was less than 18 years. As such, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner would be entitled for the relief sought for. Hence, the following:
ORDER Criminal petition is hereby allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Cr.No.38/2016 registered :7: by Kottur police station on executing a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and subject to the following conditions:
i) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without express permission,
ii) He shall appear before the jurisdictional court on all the dates of hearing,
iii) He shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witness in any manner whatsoever,
iv) If any of the conditions imposed are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek for cancellation of the bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE Jm/-