Hanamant vs The State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. The allegation against the present petitioner is for offences punishable under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''I.P.C.'', for brevity).

The background to the complaint is that, the complainant is a widow with two sons and three daughters. One of the daughters is aged about 14 years and was studying in the VIII standard. As the school, in which the victim was studying., was closed for the annual vacation, she had been sent for a short stay with one of the other daughters of the complainant, who was residing at Shivapur.

It transpires that, the present petitioner was a neighbour of Mallavva, the daughter of the complainant, who was residing in Shivapur. On 10.06.2013, Shankaramma, the victim, was said to have been sent home by bus and Mallavva had intimated her mother that, Shankramma was on her way to Bagalkot. But it transpires that, Shankramma did not return home and a frantic search was made for her and it was a seen that the petitioner was also missing from the village for several days. Therefore, on suspicion that, he might have had a hand in her disappearance, a complaint was lodged and ultimately it is claimed that, the petitioner, along with the complainant, were traced and apprehended. She was subjected to medical examination and found that she had been sexually violated, as her hymen was ruptured and that, there were signs of sexual activity. It is on that ground, that the petitioner had been taken into custody on the charges of abduction and rape.

The Court below has rejected the bail petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that, the victim was established to be a minor and since she was sexually violated, the petitioner could be the cause for it and therefore, has rejected the bail petition. Given the above circumstances, the question whether the victim was abducted and raped by the present petitioner is to be established at the trial. There is no incriminating material available to squarely hold that the petitioner was responsible for any such sexual violation of the girl, notwithstanding that, she is a minor.

Hence, the petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a self bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with a solvent surety for a like sum, subject to the following conditions:

The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without seeking leave of that Court.

The petitioner shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing.

The petitioner shall not influence or seek to threaten the prosecution witnesses in any manner.