Karnataka High Court
Mr.Sachin Babasaheb Raimane, vs State Of Karnataka, on 1 March, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Dated this the 1st Day of March 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
Criminal Petition No. 100273/2017
Between:
1. Mr. Sachin Babasaheb Raimane,
Age: 25 years, Occ.: Driver,
R/o: Nasalapur, Tq: Chikodi,
Dt: Belagavi.
2. Mr. Rakesh Babasaheb Raimane,
Age: 29 years, Occ.: Driver,
R/o: Nasalapur, Tq: Chikodi,
Dt: Belagavi.
- Petitioners
(By Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, Advocate)
And:
State of Karnataka by
Chikodi Police Station,
Represented by the
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Dharwad-580 001.
- Respondent
(by Sri Praveen K. Uppar, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking
to enlarge the petitioners on bail in connection with S.C. No.
85/2016 on the file of III Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Belagavi,
for the offences punishable u/S 363, 342, 376, 120(B), 504, 384
r/w 149 of IPC and Sec. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act & etc.
2
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Pleader. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 4 in Crime No. 134/2016. The Police laid a charge sheet against the accused after thorough investigation for the offences u/S 363, 342, 376, 120(B), 504, 384 r/w 149 of IPC and Sec. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act in S.C. No. 85/2016 on the file of III Addl. Dist. Judge, Belagavi.
2. The brief allegations made against the accused persons are that the victim girl, daughter of one Virupakshappa Magadum, aged 16 years, resident of Sarji Rao Nagar, was taken by the accused No.1, the petitioner No.1 herein and he kept her at various places and committed sexual activity with her and also they have made attempts to sell her after their purpose and demanded ransom from the father of the victim girl.
3
3. The charge sheet papers also disclose that the victim girl was examined by the Police u/S 161 of Cr.P.C. on 17.12.2015 and also got her examined before the jurisdictional Magistrate u/S 164 of Cr.P.C. on 19.12.2015. The statement made by the victim girl before the Police play a dominant role, at this stage, which shows that on 21.06.2015 it is alleged that after the College hours she was standing in front of her College at Chikkodi, at that time the petitioner No.1 called her and he took her to Kolhapur and then to a village called Kale and then to Kukkanavad village. In the said village he took her to the house of one Sarkar and kept her in the house situated in the landed property of the said person. It is alleged that there he persuaded and assured her that he would like to marry her. She was reluctant for the same. But he consoled her and stayed there for some time. In fact, they have had sexual intercourse with each other. Though it is stated that he was forcing her to commit said activity, but up to 26.11.2015 they were there and had sex with each other. It is also seen in the statement that on 4 26.11.2015 the mother and sister of petitioner No.1 came there and they took this girl to attend a marriage function in Mumbai. After the marriage function they came back to the same house and thereafter on 07.12.2015 the maternal aunt of the petitioner No.1 took her to Kukkbnavad village and they kept her there. It is alleged that there the accused persons have prevented her from calling her father over phone, etc.
4. On looking to the statement of the victim girl u/S 161 of Cr.P.C. there is no allegation of forcibly taking this girl by the petitioner No.1 and it appears for all those days she was with the petitioner No.1. The subsequent statement recorded u/S 164 of Cr.P.C. discloses that she has improved her version that, at the time of taking her, the petitioner No.1 had threatened her with dire consequences of killing her father and also improved her version that after using her, the petitioner No.1 demanded ransom from her father and also planned to sell her to somebody. Compared to the two 5 statements, there is lot of improvement in the second statement.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice that the victim was also undergone medical examination, the age clarificate was given, which showed that she was aged about 18 years. Though the other materials produced before the Court and the statement of the witnesses show that she was only 16 ½ years as on the date of the offence but the material also shows that she might have attained the age of majority. This difference has to be proved during the course of the full dressed trial. The material on record also creates suspicion, at this stage, whether the victim girl was actually forcibly taken by the petitioner No.1 and forcibly have had sexual intercourse with her. All those things have to be proved during the course of full dressed trial beyond reasonable doubt.
6
Under the above said suspicious circumstances, I am of the opinion, the petitioners are enlarged on bail as could be seen, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner No.2 herein. All allegations are made against the accused No.1. Hence, the petitioner No.2 is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the following order is passed.
ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioners shall be released on bail in connection with S.C. No. 85/2016 on the file of Third Additional District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, for the offences punishable u/S 363, 342, 376, 120(B), 504, 384 r/w 149 of IPC and Sec. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act on the following conditions.
1. The petitioners shall execute their personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one solvent surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;
2. The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses;
7
3. The petitioners shall attend the Court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for genuine reasons.
4. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against them is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE bvv