Karnataka High Court
Muniraju A vs The State Of Karnataka By on 16 February, 2015
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7446 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
Muniraju .A,
Son of Anjinappa,
Aged about 27 years,
97, Govindapura,
Veeranna Palya Main Road,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore - 560 045. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. Mohammed Pasha .C, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka by
Hebbal Police Station,
Bangalore - 560 024. ...RESPONDENT
(By Shri. K. Nageshwarappa, Government Pleader)
****
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the
code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to enlarge the
petitioner on bail in Crime No.205/2014 lodged by the Hebbal
2
Police Station, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under
Sections 363, 376(i), 376(d) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
under Section 3 and 5(g) of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, pending before the L Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the court
made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
2. The present petitioner is said to be Accused No.1 in a case registered against four accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 363, 376(i), 376(d) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC', for brevity) read with Sections 3 and 5(g) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the POCSO Act', for brevity).
3. It is stated that the present petitioner was a Physical Education Teacher in Young Scholars Academy from 1.6.2013 and he had a good reputation for efficient and disciplined work. 3 He had secured a merit seat in Bangalore University for Master of Physical Education Course for the academic year 2014-15 and he had joined the course at the University in August 2014. However, on the basis of the case now registered, the petitioner is languishing in custody. It transpires that the complainant - aunt of the victim had stated that her niece who was alone with her since her parents had gone away to Erode to attend a funeral, had gone out and not returned home on 28.08.2014. A missing complaint having been lodged and on further investigation, it was disclosed that she was in friendly terms with Accused No.2 who was said to be a student of Polytechnic at Tumkur and that she was in the habit of frequently visiting him at Tumkur and on further interrogation, she had revealed that she was not only enticed by Accused No.2, but also the other accused, namely Karthik and Mahesh and the present petitioner as well and that on several occasions, they had all had sex with her. It is on the basis of the said allegations of rape where she was not capable of giving her consent due to her age, 4 even if it was consensual sex, in the eye of law, had amounted to rape and accordingly, a case has been registered against all the accused. Though the bail petition of Accused No.3 was rejected by the lower court, it has been considered by this Court in Crl.P.7608/2014 dated 6.1.2015 and bail has been granted on the ground that as there were inconsistent statements of the victim, it would have to be established by the prosecution with clarity as to the sequence of events and the manner in which the accused together or each one of them had taken advantage of her. This not being clear, this Court had opined that on the basis of inconsistent statements put by the victim it could not be established prima facie that the accused had committed any crime and the learned counsel for the petitioner therefore would submit that the very same reasoning would apply insofar as the present petitioner is concerned with greater force, since he was a teacher and he was no longer teaching at the school where the victim was studying and he had joined a course at Bangalore and he was very much at Bangalore when the incident had 5 taken place and he had not visited Tumkur and therefore, seeks enlargement on bail.
4. Accordingly, though the learned Government Pleader would vehemently contend that since the offence punishable under the POCSO Act is involved, it would be imprudent to consider the bail petition of the present petitioner, given the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is held entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:
1. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of the court below.
2. The petitioner shall not tamper with the witnesses or evidence.
3. The petitioner shall appear before the court regularly without fail.
4. The petitioner shall not indulge in any or similar offence.6
If any condition is violated, the State can move for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS