Karnataka High Court
Ramesh vs State Of Karnataka on 14 February, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Dated this the 14th Day of February 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
Criminal Petition No. 9546/2016
Between
Ramesh Rangappa,
Age: 23 years, Occ: Coolie,
R/o Yalpi village,
Ballari Taluk & Dist. 583 101.
- Petitioner
(By Sri Anwar Basha, Advocate)
And
State of Karnataka through
P.D. Halli P.S, Rep. by SPP,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru-01.
- Respondent
(by Sri Shivaprabhu S. Hiremath, AGA)
This Criminal Petition is filed under 439 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No. 25/2016 of
P.D. Halli P.S., Ballari, for the offence punishable under Section
366, 366(A), 376 and 114 of IPC and Sec.4, 6 and 17 of POCSO
Act & etc.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court made the following:
2
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the records.
2. A charge sheet had been laid against the petitioner making certain allegations. The brief facts as narrated in the charge sheet at column no. 17 is that, about six persons including this petitioner on 17.02.2016 at about 8 p.m. came in a car near the house of the complainant situated at Yalpi village in Ballari District. It is alleged that those six persons have forcibly taken the daughter of the complainant (victim girl) aged about 16 years for the purpose known to them. In fact the complainant went there and tried to obstruct them and catch them. But, accused No.3 at that time abused the complainant, accused No.1 pushed the complainant and thereafter all of them have taken the victim in a car and went away from that place and he came to know subsequently that, they have taken the said girl to Mantralayam and 3 thereafter the petitioner has committed sexual intercourse with her by threatening her with dire consequences. On these allegations the Police have laid charge sheet after thorough investigation.
3. According to the genesis of the prosecution case, according to the complainant, about six persons have abducted the victim girl on 17.02.2016 at 8 p.m. in a tempo trax vehicle and there are eyewitnesses to this particular incident. This emanates from the operative portion of the charge sheet.
4. The learned counsel drawn my attention in this regard the further statement of the complainant where he would state that at the earliest point of time he gave statement before the Police that the accused persons have abducted his daughter in a car and subsequently he changed that version and stated that the accused persons have abducted her in a tempo trax and thereafter he came to know that the petitioner herein has committed sexual intercourse with her. 4
5. The story stated by this complainant has been completely deviated by the victim girl at the earliest point of time in her statement dated 19.02.2016 wherein she has stated that, on that day on 17.02.2016 she was in her house and at that time the petitioner alone came near her house in a motorcycle and requested her to go along with him. Then she went with him by avoiding her father and mother. The father and mother of the complainant and nobody have seen the said girl going along with the petitioner. It is further stated that he took her to Mantralayam temple on 18.02.2016 and they had Darshan and thereafter they went to a nearby place underneath a tree, there it is alleged the petitioner have had the sexual intercourse with her. In this connection, it is stated by her that her father had lodged a complainant and therefore the accused brought her back on 19.02.2017 and handed over her to the Police. The Police during the course of investigation have also got recorded the statement of the victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she again changed version. In the statement u/S 164 of Cr.P.C she has 5 stated that, on the date of incident, at about 8 p.m. about six persons came in the car, they dragged her and took her along with them and thereafter out of those six persons one person has committed rape on her and he brought her back in a train.
6. Looking to the above said version of the complainant and the victim, stage by stage, they have changed their version. What exactly the genesis of the case, has to be ascertained during the course of the trial by the Court. It is very difficult at this stage to believe any one of the version of the victim girl or the father of the victim girl.
7. The petitioner was arrested long ago and now he is in jail, charge sheet is already filed, victim girl aged more than 16 years, some material is there to show that both petitioner and victim are loving each other. Under the above said circumstances, irrespective of the age of the girl, when the total incident itself at this stage is not believable and one of the above said three statements has to be proved before the 6 Court beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail at this stage. Hence, the following order is passed.
ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Spl. C. No. 58/2016 pending on the file of First Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ballari, for the offences punishable under Sections 366-A, 376 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and under Section 4 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, subject to the following conditions.
1. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
2. The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.
3. The petitioner shall attend the Court on all the hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for genuine reasons.
7
4. The petitioner shall not leave jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE bvv