Karnataka High Court
Sri. Narendra Babu vs State Of Karnataka on 16 August, 2017
Author: Rathnakala
Bench: Rathnakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRL. P. NO. 5694/2017
C/W
CRL. P. NO. 5278/2017
IN CRL. P. NO. 5694/2017
BETWEEN
SRI. NARENDRA BABU,
S/O LATE MUNI REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.9, 1ST MAIN,
1ST AVENUE, SHUBHA ENCLAVE,
HARALURU ROAD,
BENGALURU CITY - 560 102. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI B. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL FOR
AMAR CORREA ASSOCIATES )
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY BELLANDUR POLICE,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.95/2017 OF BELLANDURU POLICE
STATION, BENGALURU CITY, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
376, 323 R/W 34 OF IPC.
*****
2
IN CRL. P. NO. 5278/2017
BETWEEN
T. B. JOSHI,
S/O T. K. BALA KRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO.09, DAYA, 1ST MAIN,
SHUBA ENCLAVE,
HARALURU ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 024. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED PASHA C., ADV.)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY BELLANDUR POLICE
STATION BENGALURU,
REP. BY SPP., HIGH COURT
CAMPUS, BENGALURU - 560 001 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CR.NO.95/2017 OF BELLANDURU P.S.,
BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376 AND 323 R/W
34 OF IPC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners in these petitions are charge sheeted and they are in Judicial Custody in Crime No.95/2017 registered by the respondent - Police. During the pendency of these petitions, the Investigating Officer, after completion of the investigation has submitted charge sheet 3 to the court for the offences punishable under sections 376 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is from Mumbai and she had acquaintance with one Sathishkumar - CW2, a resident of Bengaluru, and the acquaintance developed into affair. In that context, she used to visit Bengaluru. Of late, she had come to Bengaluru, to take treatment for her leg pain on 30.4.2017 by flight and stayed in a Hotel. On 2.5.2017, when she had been on walk in the park next to the hotel, she was bitten by a street dog and at that time, accused No.1, who was a stranger came to her help, chased the dog away, advised her to take medical treatment for dog bite.
3. The complainant took treatment in a Hospital. On the next day, again she went for a walk and met A1 and had a talk with him. Thus, acquaintance developed between her and the accused No.1 and his friend accused No.2. The accused persons assured her to get her a chef job in a Five Star Hotel at Bengaluru. She was also assured assistance, if she starts catering work. On 4 14.5.2017, during noon hours, she went to the house of A2. A1 and the maid servant of A2 were in the house. Then, A2 left the house to get his friend for the business talk, but did not return for a long time and returned at 5.15 hours. After that she went to the kitchen and prepared pasta. At that time, A1 and A2 only were in the house and they dragged her to the room, committed rape on her. However, she escaped from the house and contacted CW-2 over phone. With the assistance of a lady on the road, she got admitted to the Manipal Hospital.
4. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel Sri Ravi B. Naik, appearing for the petitioner-accused No.1 and Sri Mohammed Pasha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.2 that there are several discrepancies in the case of the prosecution. There is variation and development from the stage of complaint to the stage of investigation and no medical evidence is found in support of the alleged offence. In fact, the accused were trapped and complaint was filed with an intention to extort money from the petitioners. The accused are family persons in their fifties. Since investigation is complete, 5 they are no more required to be continued in the Judicial Custody. Further, they undertake to abide by any of the conditions imposed by this court.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader while opposing the petition submits that the discrepancies in the case of the prosecution if any, is the matter of trial. There is a categorical allegation made against these petitioners by the complainant. Even though medical evidence is not supporting the prosecution case is not available, the victim's statement cannot be ignored. If they are enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of winning over the witnesses and damaging the prosecution case.
6. Perused the charge sheet papers and the records. Without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, there is no impediment to allow the petition in the light of the fact that the petitioners are persons without criminal antecedents. Hence, (1) The petitions are allowed.
(2) The petitioners are enlarged on bail in Crime No.95/2017 registered by the respondent police on each of them executing a self bond 6 for a sum of Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh) each with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned court.
(3) They shall mark their attendance on every Tuesday during office hours before the respondent - Investigating Officer till the completion of the trial.
(4) They shall attend the court regularly on all hearing dates and shall not terrorize the complainant and other prosecution witnesses.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL