Karnataka High Court
Muniraju S/O Krishnappa vs State Of Karnataka on 20 October, 2015
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 20th day of October, 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6523/2015
BETWEEN
MUNIRAJU
S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT THIRUGULU VILLAGE
SANTAHALLI POST
MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT
PIN CODE: 563 160 ... PETITIONER
(By SRI SHANKAR M NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE
BANGALORE
PIN:560016 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B VISHVESHVARIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETR. ON BAIL IN CR.NO
419/2015(SPL.CC.NO 405/2015) OF RAMAMURTHY NAGAR
P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376 OF
IPC & 5(M),6 OF POCSO ACT.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner alleged with offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, has presented this petition seeking enlargement on bail in Crime No.419/2015 registered in Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station which after investigation is pending trial in Spl. C.C.No.405/2015 on the file of the III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH 54), Bengaluru.
2. Heard Shri Shankar M.Naik, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.Vishveshvariah, learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to his inimical disposition with the father of victim child. He submitted that 3 petitioner is a carpenter by avocation and father of the victim child, Revanasiddappa is a construction worker. There was some financial transaction between the parties which had strained the relation between them. Father of the victim child has lodged a false complaint against the petitioner.
He further submitted that investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed before the Special Court and the same is pending trial.
To substantiate his contention that incident is a false one, he adverted to the statement of the victim child recorded by the Learned 13th Addl. CMM, Bengaluru, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., medical certificate and cytology report and contended that the medical report and cytology report do not disclose any material to infer that the child was sexually assaulted. He further submitted that statement of victim girl before the Magistrate is analogous with the medical report. 4 The petitioner is in detention since 19.7.2015 and the learned Counsel prays for his enlargement on bail.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP opposing the petition submitted that this is a case in which a tender child aged about 5 years is involved and the offence alleged is a heinous one and therefore, the petition deserves to be rejected.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP and perused the material papers.
6. The medical certificate dated 18.7.2015 issued by Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Medical College & Hospital reveals that no external injuries were noted at the time of examination and there is no specific opinion suggesting that the child might have been sexually assaulted. The cytology report dated 20.7.2015 also issued by the same hospital states that no spermatozoa was seen in the 5 smear. Further, the statement recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also does not indicate commission of the alleged offence. The police, after investigation, have already filed charge sheet. In the circumstances, in my view, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed and bail is granted to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Petitioner shall be released on bail upon his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
(ii) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to prosecution witness or any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to 6 dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court.
(ii)
(iii) Petitioner shall not manipulate or hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
(iv) Petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activities.
(v) If the petitioner violates any one of the conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE Yn.