Karnataka High Court
Gaviyappa S/O Tippanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 March, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200335/2017
Between:
Gaviyappa S/o Tippanna
Age: 22 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Haretnoor Village, Tq: Shindhanur,
Dist: Raichur.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Mahantesh Patil, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka
R/by High Court of Karnataka
Bench at Kalaburagi
(Through Shindhanur Rural
P.S. Dist: Raichur)
... Respondent
(By Sri P.S. Patil, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to grant the regular bail to the petitioner in
Spl. Case (POCSO) No.16/2017 (Shindanur Rural P.S. Crime
No.260/2016) (SPL FIR (POCSO) No.127/2016) pending on
the file of Addl. Sessions Judge Raichur, which is registered
2
for the offences P/U/Sec. 504, 509 of IPC & U/Sec. 12 of
Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
This petition is coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
As per the order dated 16.03.2017 the Tahsildar, Raichur has produced sealed cover intact and same was opened before the Court and perused, thereafter, the same was resealed. The Registry is directed to send back the original dying declaration with proper acknowledgment to the Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Raichur to keep it in the said file.
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.260/2016 of Sindanoor Rural Police Station, Raichur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 305, 504, 509 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 12 of Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
3
2. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, the deceased and accused No.1 were residents of Haretnur village in Sindagi taluk. On 21.10.2016 at about 1:30 p.m. when the deceased was returning home from her land, on the way accused No.1 came and asked the deceased that she was in intimacy with accused-petitioner and asked the deceased for sexual contact with him, for which deceased refused. She took it serious to her mind and came to house and at about 2:00 p.m. poured kerosene herself and set ablaze and suffered injuries. The family members and people heard the screaming voice went and saw there, the deceased was ablaze with fire and suffering with injuries. Immediately after extinguishing fire by calling ambulance took to RIMS hospital, Raichur and while taking treatment, she died on 26.10.2016. 4
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State.
4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that only because accused-petitioner used to love the deceased he has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner- accused is in no way concerned to the alleged crime and he was not present at the time of alleged incident. He has further contended that the accused-petitioner neither abeted nor instigated the deceased to commit suicide by ablaze. He has further contended that the accused - petitioner is having deep roots in the society and has got both movable and immovable properties, therefore, there is no chance of he being absconded. It is further contended that, if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be 5 imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition.
5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently contended that accused-petitioner was having relationship with the deceased and the deceased has committed suicide by pouring kerosene by herself by ablaze. At this juncture, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is likelihood of he being absconded and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. I have gone through the copy of the FIR, complaint and other material produced along with the petition, even dying declaration which has been secured from the Tahsildar, Raichur. On going through the material it indicates that nowhere the accused- petitioner was present at the time of alleged incident and even there are no overt acts and there is no prima 6 facie material to show that the accused-petitioner has been involved in the alleged crime. There is no direct or indirect role played by the accused-petitioner and the alleged offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. I feel if the accused-petitioner is released on bail, by imposing stringent conditions, it would meet the ends of justice.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is allowed and petitioner/accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in
hampering the investigation or
tampering the prosecution witnesses; 7
iii) The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer as and when required;
iv) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE sdu