Karnataka High Court
Mahabaleshwar Kunabi vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2021
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23 R D DAY OF JULY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101307/2021
BETWEEN:
MAHABALESHWAR KUNABI,
AGED: 27 YEARS , OCC: COOLI E
R/O: KUMBARKULI , MALAVA LLI
YELLAPUR
...PETITIONER
(BY KU. JOS HNA P. DHANAV E F OR
SRI R.H. ANGADI , ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
(YELLAPUR POLICE STATION, SIRSI)
R/BY STATE PUBLI C PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BEN CH, DHARWAD-580 011
... RES PONDENT
(BY SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI , HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL
WHO IS ARRAYED AS AN ACCUSED IN CONNECTION
WITH YELLAPUR P.S . CRIME NO.5/2021, FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNIS HABLE UNDER SECTION 376 OF IPC
AND SECTIONS 4, 6 AND 10 OF POCSO ACT , PENDIN G
ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, FTSC-I , U.K. KARWAR (SPECIAL COURT F OR
TRIAL OF CASES FILED UNDER POSCO ACT), IN
YELLAPUR P.S. CRI ME NO.5/ 2021.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the sole accused under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.5/2021 of Yellapur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and Sections 4, 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the 'POCSO Act', for brevity).
2. It is the case of the prosecution that one Valli has filed the complaint stating that on 11.01.2021, the informant was present before the Yellapur police station, with her daughter 3 victim girl aged 17 years 11 months and she has given information to Smt. Manjula Channappagoudar, BEO Office, Yellapur and police constable Smt. Neelan More were discussed about the incident, who reduced it in writing. It is further stated that the complainant is residing with her husband and daughter and a son and her daughter is dumb and deaf and they are doing coolie work. It is further stated that her daughter studied 8 t h standard in secondary school. Since last 2-3 years, she left the school and studying at home. It is further stated that since last one month prior to the complaint, her daughter was not having proper food and not keeping well and when enquired, she showed sign and thereafter the complainant given pen and paper for asking her what she want to tell. At 4 that time, she told that three months ago, she was sexually assaulted by accused person by making hand signal by taking her to Allimane garden, Shigekeri of Bare village. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.5/2021 in Yellapur Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner who is arrayed as accused has been arrested on 12.01.2021 and he is remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, the police have filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner filed bail application and the same came to be rejected by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1 U.K., Karwar, by order dated 12.02.2021. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail.
5
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, has not committed any offence as alleged and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is a married man having two children and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The victim girl who became pregnant has given birth to a male child and the Investigating Officer has not taken any steps for conducting DNA test. As the charge sheet has been filed and therefore the petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation. With this, she prayed for allowing the petition.
6
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the offence alleged against the petitioner is heinous offence punishable with imprisonment for life. The victim girl is aged 17 years 11 months as on the date of the offence and she is a dumb and deaf and taking advantage of the said aspect, the petitioner accused had forcible sexual intercourse with her and made her pregnant and she gave birth to a male child. The Investigating Officer has yet to collect the blood sample of accused petitioner, victim girl and the child born to victim girl for DNA test. The petitioner is a married man having two children. The statement of the victim girl has been recorded under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. with the help of an expert, wherein she has stated the name of petitioner as the person 7 who has sexually assaulted her and made her pregnant. He contends that on perusal of the charge sheet material, there is a prima facie case against the petitioner for the alleged offences. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge sheet papers.
7. The accusation leveled against the petitioner is that when the victim girl who is dumb and deaf was alone in the farm house, he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her since 7 months prior to the complaint and made her pregnant. The victim girl gave birth to a male child. The victim girl, when asked 8 who is responsible for her pregnancy, she has written the name of petitioner. The statement of the victim girl has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. with the help of an expert, wherein she has specifically stated by making signal that the petitioner accused has committed sexual intercourse with her and made her pregnant. On perusal of the entire charge sheet material, there is a prima facie case against the accused petitioner for the offences alleged. The presence of the petitioner is required for collecting the blood sample for the purpose of DNA test. Considering all these aspects, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RM