Karthik @ Nagendra vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—The petitioner who is arraigned as Accused No. 1 in Cr. No. 23/2013 on the file of Ramanagara Rural Police Station, Ramanagara, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 376 and 343 of IPC, is before this Court seeking for grant of regular bail. When the charge-sheet was filed, it was for the offences under Sections 366(A), 376, 343 of IPC read with Section 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Act, 2012. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution as per the averments in the complaint are that the complainant/CW-1 lodged the complaint stating that she is a resident of Belagavadi Village, Madabala Hobli and she is aged about 16 years. She is studying in Jalamangala Government P.U. College and she travels from Belakavadi to Jalamangala by bus. While going to the College, one boy used to come near the college and he used to talk to her and introduced himself as Karthik @ Nagendra. On 07.01.2013, when she was returning from the College to her house, the said Karthik came near her and forced her to sit in his car and took her to Archakarahalli near Ramanagara to his friend''s house and restrained her in the said house from 07.01.2013 to 12.01.2013 and forcefully had sex with her and when the said Karthik went to Bidadi, she escaped from that house and returned to her mother''s house in Magadi and informed her mother about the incident and has lodged the said complaint before the Magadi Police Station. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered by the Respondent Police.

Heard the arguments for the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for the Respondent-State.

The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that petitioner is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further made the submission that the case of the prosecution has not been supported by the medical evidence and even with regard to the statement of the victim girl, there is no consistency in the statement compared to the statement of the other witnesses. The learned counsel also made the submission that there is no prima-facie material placed by the prosecution to show the involvement of the petitioner/accused No. 1 in committing the alleged offence u/s 376 of IPC. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be released on bail.

As against this, the learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that the victim girl is a minor girl and her SSLC certificate has been produced and looking to the statement of victim girl as well as the statement foe her mother, so also the medical report that there is a rupture of the hymen, it goes to show that prima-facie, the petitioner has committed the offence under Sections 376 and 366(A) of IPC. Hence, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

Perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the statement of witnesses produced along with the charge-sheet. By looking into the statement of the victim girl, she has clearly stated that the petitioner/accused No. 1 took her to his friend''s house, confined her in that house from 07.01.2013 to 12.01.2013 and inspite of her objections, he forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. The medical reports prima facie goes to show that there is a rupture of hymen. Recording the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no consistency in the statement of the victim girl and her mother and other witnesses are concerned, it is for the Trial Court to ascertain during the trial and not at this stage while considering the bail petition. Looking into the materials on record, the material prima facie goes to show the involvement of the petitioner in collusion of the alleged offences. Offence alleged u/s 376 is serious and heinous offence, having grievous and serious repercussions even on the Society at large. Therefore, looking to the material on record, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner and release him on bail. Accordingly, petition is rejected.

Are that on 19.07.2005, respondent police recorded the statement of complainant and the complainant alleged that he is the Astrologer. Everyday, so many people came to his resident from the different villages for asking astrology and seek his blessings. Four days back, some three to four persons came to hi house for asking astrology and seek his blessings at about 8.00 p.m. He informed them that after 4.00 p.m., he never perform advice on astrology and does not give blessings and they returned back. On 19.07.2005, again at about 8.45 p.m., the same four persons along with two others, totally six persons came in two cars and entered his house, demanding money which he earned from his profession, if not they threatened to assault him. Among six persons, one person held his head and another person caught hold of his mouth to deter him shouting and another person hit on his head with macchu and another person attacked him with knife on his right hand. He sustained blood injuries and another held him from the back. Due to this, he shouted loudly for help and at that time, his Cook and his neighbors came for his rescue and he was taken to the hospital and in the hospital itself, his statement was recorded by the police.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner accuse No. 4 and also the learned Government Pleader for the Respondent - State.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and judgment of the Trial Court in S.C. No. 26/2007 and also perused the statement of witnesses produced along with the petitioner by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This incident is of the year 2005 as the police were not able to trace the petitioner - accused No. 4 inspite of their best efforts, they have file split up charge-sheet against the present petitioner and police have taken steps to declare the present petitioner as proclaimed offender. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that the conduct of the present petitioner clearly goes to show that because of his non-availability, split up charge-sheet has been filed and incase, if he is released on bail or granted with anticipatory bail, he may abscond and he may put further hurdles in the trial of the case against him. Looking into the materials on record, as the incident is of the year 2005, trial in respect of other accused is already been concluded and judgment has been pronounced. All these clearly goes to show that the present petitioner absconded all the while and there is force in the contention of the learned Government Pleader that incase, if anticipatory bail is granted, he will abscond and may not be available. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, petition is rejected.