Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sandeep S/O Pampapathi vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 December, 2015
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101944/2015
BETWEEN:
SRI SANDEEP S/O PAMPAPATHI,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KAKKARGOL, TQ: GANGAVATHI,
DIST.: KOPPAL.
- PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH P.S.I. KARATAGI
POLICE STATION REPTD. BY
ADDL. SPP, SPP OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
- RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, GOVT. PLEADER)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C. NO.
29/2015 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 376, 420 OF IPC
R/W SEC. 12 OF POCSO ACT, 2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL & ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
ORDER
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner-accused u/S 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable u/S 376 and 420 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. 91/2015 of Karatagi Police Station.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are that, victim is the complainant. She has stated that her parents have two daughters and she is the youngest. She studied upto SSLC and about 1½ years ago she had an affair with the present petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner has promised to marry the complainant and as such both many times had sexual intercourse. Later the complainant became pregnant and when this was informed to the petitioner he alleged to have protested and informed the complainant that he would not marry her. Therefore, having become upset the complainant went to Bengaluru and started residing in Florence Old Age Home Medical Service Centre, Nagarabhavi. Eventually she begot a child on 13.04.2015 and gave her statement before Sayeeda :3: Noorulla and she as per the instructions of her higher officer approached the Police and lodged complaint which came to be registered in Jnanabharathi Police Station for the said offences and thereafterwards it was transferred to the jurisdictional Police on the basis of which a case was registered in Crime No. 91/2015.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused made the submission that looking to the contents of the complaint and also other materials collected, they go to show that the victim girl and the present petitioner were having affair between them and because of that reason they used to have sexual intercourse between themselves. Learned counsel for the petitioner further made the submission that there is no allegation either in the complaint or in her statement given under 164 of Cr.P.C., that there is forcible sexual intercourse on her, against her will and :4: without her consent. Hence, he submitted that the offence under 376 of IPC will not be attracted. It is also his submission that so far as Section 420 is concerned, it is yet to be ascertained during the course of trial. He further submitted, that now the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been filed, and since four months the petitioner is in custody. Hence, he submitted to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP made the submission that the materials clearly go to show that the present petitioner exploited the victim girl by making the false promise that he is going to marry her. Believing the words of the accused person the complainant was moving along with the petitioner and taking undue advantage of the same, the petitioner committed sexual intercourse on her and thereby committed the alleged offence. Learned HCGP also made the submission that, when she went to the old age home, then she complained before the old age home, thereafter she given a complaint before the respondent-police. Learned HCGP also made the submission that now the girl has :5: given birth to a child and it is all because of the present petitioner. Hence, she submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail. It is also her submission that, earlier the present petitioner approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail and the same was rejected.
6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, also the FIR, Complaint and other material produced in the case. Looking to the complaint allegations they go to show that the victim girl, as well as the petitioner came in contact with each other and they were acquainted and they were moving together and during this period they had sexual intercourse. Materials on record also go to show that because of these reasons she conceived and it is undisputed fact that she gave birth to a child. Materials also go to show that when she goes to the old age home and told about the fact that as happened, subsequently she was taken to the police station and there she lodged the complaint. :6:
7. Her statement was also recorded before the Magistrate Court, wherein she has narrated about the allegations made in the complaint. But looking to the materials collected during the investigation, prima facie, go to show that by making false promise that he will marry her the present petitioner had the sexual intercourse with the said girl and thereafter she became pregnant and delivered a child. Earlier also the present petitioner approached this Court seeking his release on anticipatory bail. But looking to the order passed by this Court, this Court has observed that looking to the factual aspects involved in the case and the gravity of the charges and its impact on the society at large, that is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Court has applied its mind so far as merit is concerned in the earlier petition filed seeking for anticipatory bail and on the basis of the facts the Court has already taken the decision that it was not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail in this case. Therefore, :7: considering all these aspects, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE bvv