Karnataka High Court
Fayaz Rajak Karajagi, vs The State Of Karnataka, on 25 November, 2015
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101657/2015
BETWEEN:
FAYAZ RAJAK KARAJAGI,
AGE:28 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE,
R/O: GHODAGERI, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S B DEYANNAVAR, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH YAMANAKAMARDI POLICE
R/BY SPP HIGH COURT BENCH DHARWAD
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.VEENA HEGDE, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER
ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN YAMAKANMARDI
P.S.CR.NO.26/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN S.C.NO.102/2015
FOR THE O/P/U/S 363,366(A),376 OF IPC AND 3(1)(XI) &
:2:
3(2)(V) OF S.C. & S.C. ACT 1989 AND 4 AND 8 OF POCSO
ACT 2012.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 376 of IPC, under Sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Sections 4 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.26/2015.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case that Kumari Renuka D/o Basavaraj Banasode, lodged the complaint mentioning that she is resident of Hidkal Dam Village, residing there with her family members. It is mentioned that about two months prior to the alleged incident, she went to pan shop to get currency to her :3: father mobile and in the said shop she gave her mobile number in a chit in the hands of pan shop owner and after getting currency, she threw the mobile number chit in front of pan shop. At that time one person taken the chit and he used to call occasionally and enquired about the complainant's family and the house situated in which area, etc. Complainant also gave her detail history in phone and she also enquired the name of the person, who chitchatting with her and he told that his name is Riyaz. Such being the fact on 27.01.2015 the complainant went to market to bring Pooja items and after purchasing the same she was on her way to go to her house, at that time it was 7.30 p.m. At that time, a person came on his motor cycle and told her that he is the person, who is chitchatting with her in mobile and so saying he asked her to sit on his motor cycle, when the complainant denied, he forced her to sit on his motorcycle. Thereafter, he took the complainant to various places and lastly on Godachinmalaki Paschapur :4: road, he removed her panty and first he inserted his finger in her private part and then forcibly made intercourse on her and left her near Tummarguddi village. The complainant went to the house of her friend at Tummarguddi, and later they informed the same to her father and the relatives and other came there and shifted the complainant to their village. On that day complainant did not disclose anything about her previous day story and she was kept mum and later, on 31.01.2015 she disclosed the same to her parents and others. Thereafter, complaint was filed on the basis of which, case has been registered against the petitioner for the alleged offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.1 and also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that looking to the complaint averments it :5: shows that complaint was against another person and not against the petitioner. It is also submitted that even the identity of the petitioner was also not established by the prosecution. He also submitted that there is a delay in lodging the complaint and according to the averments in the complaint, even though she went to her house, she did not disclose the previous day story before her parents, hence, the complaint is after thought and it is after due deliberations between the family members and others. He has further submitted that perusing the entire materials on record, it shows that the age of the complainant is 18 years as per the medical evidence, but age is shown as 15 years as deposed before the JMFC Court. As the investigation is completed and the charge sheet has also been filed in the case, hence, by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
:6:
5. Per contra, learned HCGP has submitted that looking to the statement of the victim girl given before the JMFC Court, it clearly shows that it is the petitioner, who forcibly took her on his motorcycle and had forcible sexual intercourse on her. Even the medical records clearly shows that the story of the prosecution is consistent with the averments made in the complaint regarding the person against whom the complaint has been lodged. It is also submitted that the complaint is made against the petitioner and same name has been entered in the FIR also, therefore, there is no question of wrong identity of the person in the case. Learned HCGP has further submitted that complainant was aged 15 years as per her statement recorded before the JMFC Court, but the school records produced, shows that she was aged 16 years, hence, the offences alleged are serious offences and even also under the provisions of POCSO Act, hence, submitted that petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail. :7:
6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and charge sheet material made over by the learned HCGP, so also other materials produced in the case.
7. Perusing the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C before the JMFC Court, she has clearly narrated about what the petitioner has done to her, that he forcibly took her on his motorcycle and then against her will committed forcibly sexual intercourse on her. So far as the delay is concerned, it is no doubt true when she had been to the house, she has not narrated about the incident before the family members of the previous day story, but on the next day, she disclosed the incident before the family members, since, the alleged offence is under Section 376 of IPC, but it is natural as the offence is going to affect the prestige and honour of the family members, the complainant might not have disclosed the :8: same before the family members immediately. But when the other materials placed by the prosecution prima-facie shows about the involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offence, even including the medical records, under such circumstances while hearing this bail petition, only on the ground of delay, the entire materials cannot be ignored by this Court.
8. Looking to the materials on record prosecution has made out prima-facie case about the involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offence. Hence, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR