Bharati vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This is the petition filed by petitioner-Accused No. 2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking her release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(i), 370(2), 344 R/w. Section 34 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered in respondent police station Crime No. 232/2015.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 14.03.2015 one girl by name Soumya @ Sonia D/o. Savant Harijan resident of Mamadapur Taluka Chikodi, aged about 14 years joined Government Girls Primary School at Saundatti. On 17.04.2015 her mother took her to their village for a week. After lapse of two months she returned back the School i.e. on 19.06.2015. She lied regarding her maturity. Doubting on the same, on 08.08.2015 the complainant made medical checkup of Soumya by B.S. Kalled and it was disclosed that, she was conceived and it was confirmed after medical checkup at Government Hospital, Saundatti. After making due enquiry she disclosed that, when she went along with her mother one month later on 07.05.2015 when she and her friend Vidya resident of Gokak were standing at Ghataprabha Railway Station, at about 1.00 noon, one person by name Ashok resident of Meerapuratti who is known to her aunt took them in train to Belagavi to celebrate festival at their place. At their home his wife Bharati was also present. Subsequent day male members started to visit the house. Bharati wife of Ashok forced the victim girl to sleep with the visitors and she slept with them as per the say of Bharati. After ten days, Ashok left them in Railway Station and she went to her village Ghataprabha Railway Station. On the basis of these allegations a complaint was registered for the alleged offences.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Accused No. 2 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No. 2 made the submission that so far as the allegation under Section 376, which is serious allegation, was made against accused No. 1-Ashok. He made the submission that this petitioner/accused No. 2 has been shown as the wife of one Ashok. But he submitted that looking to the correct name of the said person it prima facie goes to show that the present petitioner is not wife of the said Ashok against whom allegations are made in the complaint. Hence, he submitted that the petitioner is innocent and she was not at all involved in committing the alleged offences and about her identity she was also involved in the case it is yet to be ascertained during the course of the trial. Hence, he submitted as no prima facie case is made out against the preset petitioner, by imposing reasonable conditions she may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned HCGP made the submission that looking to the prosecution materials they go to show that victim girl was only 14 years of age as on the alleged date of incident. Materials also go to show that when the victim girl along with her friend Vidya were waiting in Ghataprabha Railway Station accused No. 1-Ashok came and took them stating that there is festival in the village. Learned HCGP also made the submission that looking to the prosecution materials and more particularly the statement of the victim girl recorded before the JMFC Court, they go to show that the victim girl narrated in detail that the present petitioner was made her to sleep with so many persons who were coming to the house of accused No. 1. Learned HCGP also made the submission that even the medical opinion in this case clearly goes to show that the victim girl conceived even though she was 14 years of age. Hence, she submitted whether this accused No. 2 is the wife of the accused No. 1 or not is not material and looking to the statement of the victim girl it prima facie go to show the involvement of the present petitioner in committing the said allegations. Hence, submitted at this stage petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, also the FIR, Complaint and other materials produced in the case. I have also perused the rejected bail order by the learned Sessions Judge, Belagavi. I have perused the statement of the victim girl recorded before the JMFC Court at Gokak in Ghataprabha Police Station Crime No. 232/2015. Her statement goes to show that she was 14 years of age when the statement was recorded and it was recorded on oath, wherein she has clearly narrated about the involvement of the present petitioner also in committing the alleged offences. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that the petitioner is not the wife of accused No. 1-Ashok against whom there are allegations in the complaint. It is rightly submitted by the learned HCGP that it is not the stage to ascertain all these things and it is only during the course of the trial, as the victim girl has clearly stated about the involvement of the present petitioner also committing the alleged offences and the manner in which the offences said to have been committed. It is very serious matter. Therefore, looking to these materials placed on record, I am of opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail. Accordingly, the petition is hereby rejected.