Karnataka High Court
Ahnil S/O Somanath Bakale vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 May, 2022
Author: K. Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF MAY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101286/2022
BETWEEN:
ANIL S/O SOMANATH BAKALE
AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS,
R/O. BRAHMIN ONI, HOSARITTI-583213
TQ AND DIST. HAVERI
.. PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH HAVERI WOMEN PS
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH.
2 . SMT. RATNA W/O. HOLEBASAPPA TOTAGER
AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. HOSARITTI-583213
TQ AND DIST. HAVERI.
.. RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.
RESPONDENT NO.2 SERVED.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 438 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO PASS AN ORDER TO ENLARGING THE PETITIONER ON
ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.23/2022 REGISTERED WITH HAVERI
WOMEN PS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 354(A),
2
357, 341, 448 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 8, 10 AND 12 OF POCSO ACT, IN
CASE OF HIS ARREST.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL
HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.23/2022 registered by the Haveri Women Police Station, Haveri, for the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 357, 448 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for brevity) and Sections 8, 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, one Smt.Ratna Totager, mother of the victim girl, filed a complaint before the police on 15.03.2022 alleging that on 12.03.2022 herself, her younger daughter and her sister had been to 'santhe' and while going to 'santhe', the complainant had left her 2nd daughter/the victim in her neighbour's house. When she came back with the bags, the door of the house was closed from inside and one old lady 3 was knocking the door stating that somebody has gone inside and the child was inside the house. After knocking the door, the victim herself came and released the latch and hugged the complainant and told weeping that the petitioner has hugged her and kissed her and ran away from the back side door. When she enquired with the people, she came to know that it was the petitioner, who was working in the dabha which was in front of her house. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged with the police. After registering the case, since the police were making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner, he approached the learned Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State.
Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The only allegation against the 4 petitioner is that he has kissed the victim girl. There is no other material. He is ready to abide by any conditions. Hence, prayed for granting anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader seriously objected the petition and contended that the petitioner entered the house, locked the door and kissed the victim girl and ran away. Investigation is still in progress and he is required for custodial interrogation. The victim girl has given 164 Cr.P.C. statement which reveals the offence committed by the accused. Hence, prayed for rejecting the petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the records.
7. On perusal of the records, it reveals that the mother of the victim left the victim in the nieghbour's house in order go to Santhe for shopping. When she was returning home, the victim, on seeing her mother carrying two bags, took the bags and went inside the house and again the mother of the victim returned to santhe to bring back her younger daughter and her sister along with the remaining bag. When all of them returned home, an old lady was 5 knocking the door of her house and the door was latched from inside. On enquiry, the old lady told that some person has gone inside the house and is troubling the victim. By that time, the victim herself came and opened the door and hugged her mother and weeping said that the accused had hugged her, kissed her and ran away. On enquiry, they came to know that the petitioner was working in Dabha which was in front of the complainant's house and when they went to the Dhaba and asked the employer about the petitioner, he was not found. Thereafter, a complaint came to be filed. Of course, there is some delay in lodging the complaint as they were discussing the matter and thereafter, they filed the complaint. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Except kissing the victim, there are no serious allegations made out. However, the petitioner is said to be working in the Dhaba and is a resident of the same village. Therefore, though he is required for interrogation, but by imposing stringent conditions, for the purpose of investigation, if bail is granted, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
6
The Criminal petition is allowed. The respondent-police is directed to release the petitioner/accused on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.23/2022 of Haveri Women Police Station subject to the following conditions:
i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
ii. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
iii. The petitioner shall not hamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iv. The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offence.
v. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer as and when called for, for the purpose of any further investigation.
vi. The petitioner shall deemed to be in custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.7
If any of the conditions is violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move an application for cancellation bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE kmv