Karnataka High Court
Hanumanthappa Tukkappa Lamani vs State Of Karnataka on 7 December, 2017
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
Crl.P.No.102632/2017
BETWEEN
HANUMANTHAPPA TUKKAPPA LAMANI
AGE 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O: ALLIPUR, SAVANUR TALUK
HAVERI DIST
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.R.M.JAVED, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SAVANUR P.S.
REP BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA,
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/
ACCUSED NO. 1 ON BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH SAVANUR
P.S. CRIME NO. 179 OF 2016 (NOW SPL. S.C.NO. 27 OF
2017) FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 363, 376(2)(N), 114, 509 READ WITH SECTION 34
OF IPC AND SECTION 4, 6 AND 12 OF POCSO ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Savanoor P.S. Crime No.179/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(N), 114, 509 read with Section 34 of IPC, besides Sections 4, 6 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. Since from the date of arrest, the petitioner is in judicial custody. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is praying for enlargement of the petitioner on regular bail among the grounds urged therein.
2. Brief facts of the case are that one Smt.Channavva R/o.Allipur filed complaint before the respondent-Police alleging that the accused abducted her minor daughter Kumari Kavita, who is aged about 16 years 6 months, as the victim who was informed that on 04.11.2016 the accused who took her on his motorcycle informing her to accompany him to go to watch the movie "Santu". Because of the request made by him, the victim girl accompanied with him, but the accused took her to Hubballi Railway Station, where they boarded Mysore Express Train and reached Mysore and from there they went by bus to Kottiyur Village of Konnur District, 3 Kerala and stayed there in a house. It is further informed by her daughter that on 17.11.2017, the accused tried to commit forcible sexual intercourse on her, due to which she fell unconscious and thereafter the petitioner admitted her to Hospital for treatment and from there the victim has given telephonic information by using the cell phone of nurse to her family members and they came and took her back to her home. Based upon the complaint filed by the complainant being the mother of the victim before the respondent-Police, crime came to be registered and thereafter the Investigating Officer, who has taken up the case for investigation and also investigated the case and laid the charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offences.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the learned HCGP for the respondent
- State.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments contended that the allegation made in the complaint that the victim is said to be aged about 16 years 6 months and took her on his motorcycle on the pretext of watching movie "Santu" on 04.11.2017. Instead of taking 4 her to movie, the accused took her to Mysore and from there to Kottiyur village of Konnur District, Kerala and stayed there in a house, wherein the accused tried to commit forcible intercourse with her due to which she fell unconscious. These are the materials, which are borne out in the compliant, which has been filed by the complainant by setting up of a theory against the accused, just to give harassment to the accused, as this contention, which has been taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments. Whereas the victim, who is subjected to medical test, but nothing is forthcoming in the report that the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with her. But the Police have not secured any piece of evidence regarding the accused had forcible sexual assault with the victim. In the charge sheet, which is laid by the Investigating Officer against the accused have included the certificate issued by the Tahsildar of Savanur Talulk, it reveals that because of the non-availability of birth certificate of the victim, the police have not produced the document to substantiate the age of the victim and she has been abducted by the accused and also taken her to Mysore in Train from there to Kottiyur Village of Konnur 5 District, Kerala, where they have stayed in a house. All these theory, which has been set up in the charge sheet laid against the accused to deprive him for seeking the relief of bail. It is further contended that in the statement of the victim, no where stated that the accused had sexual assault on her. However, the petitioner is in judicial custody since from the date of arrest and if the accused is supposed to be kept behind the bar for longer period, his family members would be ruined in the society, since the accused is the only source in the family to eke out the life of the dependents. Moreover, the petitioner is ready to abide by any terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court, while granting bail to him. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner praying to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent - State vehemently contended that on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant being the mother of the victim, a case came to be registered in Crime No.179/2016 for the aforesaid alleged offences. Whereas the victim accompanied the accused on the pretext of watching movie "Santu" on 04.11.2017, instead of taking her to movie, he 6 took her to Mysore and from there to Kottiyur village of Konnur District, Kerala and stayed there in a house, wherein the accused tried to commit forcible intercourse with her due to which she fell unconscious and thereafter the accused admitted her to Hospital for treatment and by using the cell phone of nurse in the Hospital, the victim narrated the said incident to her family members and from there they took her back to home. Whereas, she has given statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate, which is in conformity with the averments made in the complaint. Whereas the victim is subjected to medical test. The ingredients of the medical report reveals that the hymen of the victim was ruptured and also on local genital examination evidence of signs of recent sexual intercourse present absent, this fact is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned HCGP during the course of his arguments. Apart from the other materials, which were find place in the charge sheet which is laid against the accused are statement of witnesses, statement of the victim, which is recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein she has stated that she is studied up to 10th standard and this accused is said to be posturing to the 7 victim and also insisting her to provide mobile number and also insisting to marry him and these things are reveled in her statement said to be recorded by the concerned Magistrate, as she has been secured by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Therefore, it appears that there are prima facie materials against the accused and accordingly, the learned HCGP prayed for dismissal of the bail petition, as the petitioner does not deserve for the bail as sought for.
6. Having regard to the strenuous contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned HCGP for the respondent - State relating to the case in Crime No.179/2016 came to be registered by the respondent-Police, it is based upon the complaint filed by the complainant being the mother of the victim are concerned, it is relevant to state that the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Haveri on 28.11.2016, wherein she has categorically stated that she is aged about 16 years 6 months and she was studied up to 10th standard and when she was studying in SSLC, this accused was posturing her as well as 8 insisting her to provide mobile number and so also insisting her to marry with him. It is further stated in her statement that on 04.11.2016, Friday the accused took her on his motorcycle informing her to accompany with him to go for watching movie "Santu" at Laxmeshwar. Instead of going to Laxmeshwar, the petitioner/accused took her to Hubballi Railway Station and both boarded Mysore Express Train and reached the Mysore, from there they went by bus to Kottiyur village of Konnur District, Kerala and stayed there in a house.
It is further stated that on 17.11.2017, the petitioner/accused tried to commit forcible sexual intercourse on her, due to which, she fell unconscious and thereafter, the petitioner admitted her to Hospital for treatment, where by using cell phone of the nurse in the Hospital, she informed to one her relative Jeevappa, who informed the same to her family members and they came and took her back to her home. Based upon the complaint filed by the complainant crime came to be registered by the respondent-Police for the aforesaid offences and thereafter the Investigating Officer has investigated the case and laid the charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offences, which consisting the 9 statement of witnesses and also the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Haveri relating to the case in Crime No.179/2016. Merely because the charge sheet is laid against the accused by the Investigating Officer for the alleged offences, it cannot be said that the petitioner/accused is innocent and he did not have any role for committing the alleged offence. However, keeping in view the submission made by the learned counsel and also the materials which were find place in the records relating to the alleged crime as where the accused is required to be facing up of trial for the aforesaid offences are concerned, it is said that there are no substances in the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused seeking the relief of bail as sought for by urging various grounds, it is relevant to state that the accused is involved in the heinous offences i.e., abduction of the victim, who is aged about 16 years 6 months and also tried to commit the forcible sexual assault over her person, if he is supposed to be released on bail, it would give adverse impact on the society. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as well as under the circumstances of the case, I am of the 10 considered opinion that the petitioner/accused does not deserve for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeing regular bail is hereby rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE Vnp*