Ganesh vs State Of Karnataka Represented By Public Prosecutor Through Murudeshwar Police Station Uttar Kannada, Karwar � 581301 & Others

S.Rachaiah, J

Heard Sri Prabhuling K.Navadgi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Vidyavati M. Kotturshettar, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri B.N.Jagadish, learned Addl.State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State and Sri Raja Raghavendra Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

This petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 29.04.2024 in Crl.Misc.No.168/2024 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar.

The brief facts of the case is that the complainant stated to be the worker of the petitioner, she was doing household works and assisting the wife of the petitioner. It is alleged that when the wife of the petitioner was not there in the house, it is around about 5.30 to 6.00 p.m. in the month of June 2023, the petitioner herein caught hold the complainant from her backside, inspite of resistance, he took her to the bedroom and said to have forcibly intercoursed. After the incident, he has threatened her that she should not disclose the said act to anybody. The said act of sexual intercourse was being taken place on several occasions. Consequently, she became pregnant and she gave birth to a child on 07.04.2024. Based on the complaint, a case came to be registered against the accused/petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 376, 376(2)(n) and 506 of I.P.C. and he was taken to judicial custody on 14.04.2024.

It is the submission of the learned senior counsel Sri Prabhuling K.Navadgi appearing on behalf of Smt.Vidyavati M. Kotturshettar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay in lodging a complaint. The victim being matured woman and working as maid kept quite for a longer period i.e. till she gave birth to a child and thereafter she has lodged a complaint regarding alleged rape. The averments of the complaint do not disclose the ingredients of the offence as stated in the FIR.

It is further submitted that the alleged incident said to have taken place for the first time in the month of June 2023 however, the present complaint has been lodged on 09.04.2024, which contains baseless and bald allegations. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the permanent resident of Sonarkeri, Patragadde, Murdeshwar and he is having a deep root in the society and also having wife and children. The petitioner will abide the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail.

Per contra, Sri B.N.Jagadish, learned Addl.State Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that even the averments of the petition filed by the petitioner for bail do not disclose valid reasons for granting bail.

It is further submitted that the averments of the complaint and the DNA report clearly establish the offence of rape. The petitioner is having several other criminal cases and he is an influential person in the said locality. The victim being afraid of his highhandedness, did not disclose the said act of rape to anybody.

It is further submitted that the victim being a house maid, had been to work for her livelihood. The petitioner being an influential person threatened her and had forcible intercourse. Consequently, she became pregnant and delivered a baby. The act committed by the petitioner is heinous in nature and in any manner he is not entitled for bail. Further the learned Addl.S.P.P. draw my attention the socio-economic condition of the victim and her living status. Making all submissions, the learned Addl.S.P.P. prays to dismiss the petition.

Similarly, Sri Raja Raghavendra Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 adopted the argument of Addl.S.P.P. and submits that the Court while granting bail has not only considered the impact on the society but also the social status of the victim. In case, if the bail is granted to the petitioner, there is a possibility of threatening the victim and her family members. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant bail.

After having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, the said complaint discloses that the victim was working as housemaid in the house of the petitioner. The alleged incident had taken place in the month of June 2023. Thereafter, the victim did not disclose the said act to anybody till she gave birth to a child. On reading of the records, it appears that the victim gave birth to a child on 07.04.2024. Without adverting to the merit of the case, having considered the delay in lodging the complaint and also the fact that she did not inform anybody regarding the incident till she gave birth to a child, it is appropriate to grant bail.

In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.25/2024 of Murdeshwar Police Station, on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

a) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

b) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail.

c) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court till disposal of the case.