Karnataka High Court
Ravi S/O Parasappa Chaluvadi vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 July, 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
CRL.P.NO.101329 OF 2019
BETWEEN
RAVI S/O PARASAPPA CHALUVADI
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: TONDIHAL,
TQ & DIST: GANGAVATHI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S S YADRAMI, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KARATAGI POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON
BAIL IN S.C. (AC) NO.17/2019 (KARATAGI P.S. CR.NO.23/2019)
FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 363, 376, 511 R/W 34 OF IPC AND
SEC. 3(2)(V-A) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE,
KOPPAL, BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION.
:2:
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner- accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge him on bail in SC (AC) No.17/2019 (Crime No.23/2019 of Karatagi Police Station) for the offences punishable under Section 363, 376, 511 R/W 34 of IPC and Sec.3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, pending on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Koppal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned HCGP for respondent- State. Though notice is served to the complainant, complainant has remained absent.
3. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant and his wife were residing together. On 23.01.2019, at about 6.00 a.m., the complainant did not :3: find his wife in the house. He called his relatives to ascertain whereabouts of his wife and they told that she had not come there. Later, the complainant came to know that the accused No.1 kidnapped his wife, took her to Hulgi and by the side of the railway track near Huligemma temple, he tried to sexually assault her. On 22.01.2019, at about 2.00 p.m., when she was sitting near Huligemma Temple, accused No.2, who was acquainted with her on Face book, knowing fully well that the victim belong to Nayaka community, which is a schedule tribe, came and talked with her; thereafter, by saying that he would leave her to the house, he took her on the motor bike bearing registration No.KA-37/ED-6976 to Hubli. On 23.01.2019 in Ashoka Tower lodge, from 6.30 a.m. to 8.00 p.m., they stayed there and against her will, accused No.2 had sexual act with her. On 24.01.2019, when the victim was waiting in Hospet Bus stand, petitioner/accused No.3, who was also acquainted with the victim through Facebook, knowing fully well that the victim belongs to Nayak community which is SC/ST community, went and :4: talked to her, took her to the T.B.Dam Park and at about 7.00 p.m., he tried to sexually assault her. On the basis of the above complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 that the complaint filed by the husband of the victim discloses the fact that she left the house on 23.01.2019. But, as per the statement of the victim herself that she has left the house on 22.01.2019 that itself creates doubt in the case of the prosecution about the alleged incident. It is his further contention that the victim is of 24 years old and the complaint and the statement of the victim clearly goes to show that she was having so many face book friends and one after the other she has called them and voluntarily gone along with them at various places within the short span of time. Under the said facts and circumstances, the provision of Section 363 of Kidnap does not attract. It is his further contention that the petitioner-accused is in custody since 31.01.2019 and already charge sheet has been filed, the petitioner-accused is not require for further investigation :5: or interrogation. Charge sheet material if it is looked into, the only allegation which has made as against the petitioner-accused is that when she was waiting, he came in his silver color car and asked her to come and took her near the temple and there he tried to sexually assault her but she resisted the same. If said facts are taken into consideration, it is only an attempt to commit sexual assault but it is not a sexual assault as contemplated under law. Further, it is his submission that the petitioner-accused is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and release the petitioner -accused on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that petitioner/accused No.1, took the victim forcibly in his car and tried to sexually assault her. It is her further contention that if the petitioner-accused has left the victim to her house, no further offences could have been occurred. Only because of the said first incident, :6: subsequent incidents have taken place. It is her further contention that petitioner-accused if he has enlarged on bail, he may tamper the prosecution evidence and may not be available for trial. On these grounds, she prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records and charge sheet materials.
7. On close reading of the contents of the complaint, other materials and statement of the victim, though there are some variations in the date that is the material fact which goes to the root of the case. As could be seen from the charge sheet material without expressing anything on the merits of the case, the only allegation which has been made as against petitioner-accused is that he tried to sexually assault the victim and the same was resisted by the victim and she left that place. Actually, there is no sexual assault on the victim. Under such circumstances, I feel that already charge sheet has been :7: filed and the accused-petitioner is not required for further investigation or interrogation, he is entitled to be released on bail, though, Sec.3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been also included, the power under Section 18 is only in the case of anticipatory bail and not in the case of regular bail. In that light also, it will not come in the way of releasing the petitioner-accused on bail.
8. In that light, by imposing stringent conditions, if the accused/petitioner is released on bail, it would meet the ends of justice.
Hence the petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in connection with Karatagi Police Station Crime No.23/2019, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 376, 511 R/W 34 of IPC and Sec.3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, pending on the file of the :8: District and Sessions Judge, Koppal with the following conditions:
i. He shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
ii. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
iii. He shall be regular in appearing before the trial Court till the trial is completed.
iv. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
v. He shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional Police once in a month on every 1st till the trial is concluded.
vi. He shall not indulge in similar type of activities.
Sd/-
JUDGE Hmb