Manjunatha D.T. vs State

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned HCGP, perused the records and the order of the learned Sessions Judges. The brief facts that emanate from the records are that a victim girl lodged a complaint against the petitioner herein on the allegation that on 09.10.2013, when she was proceeding to school, the petitioner came there and tried to forcibly take her in a car, which was parked near a bridge on the way to the school of the complainant. However, it is stated in the first complaint that she escaped from the clutches of the petitioner and she went home and informed her maternal aunt and maternal uncle about the illegal act of the petitioner herein. After four days, that was on 23.10.2013 between 9.30 and 10.15 a.m., a complaint came to be lodged before the jurisdictional police. In this complaint there is no mention as to why on the same day, complaint has not been lodged. On perusal of the averments in the First Information Report, it shows that there was no allegation whatsoever against the petitioner that he took her and committed any sexual assault on her. However, he tried to take her in a car, but she escaped from the clutches of the petitioner. Subsequently, after five days, on 28.10.2013 the statement of the victim was recorded by the police and in that statement, she disclosed that on that particular day on 09.10.2013 at about 9.15 a.m. she was proceeding to school near the bridge near Anjaneyaswamy temple and at that time, the accused Manjunath forcibly took her in a car to Hogenikal, where she was confined in a room and at about 12.30 p.m. he committed sexual assault on her and threatened her with dire consequences. On this complaint, the police have registered a case u/s 376A, 376 and 509 IPC read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Earlier, the case was registered u/s 354-B, 504 and 509 IPC.

In the second FIR, it is specifically stated that at about 9.15 a.m., the said girl was taken by Manjunath to Hogenikal. On perusal of the first FIR, it discloses that on 09.10.2013, she escaped from the petitioner but the exact time of the alleged incident is not mentioned. Between 23.10.2013 and 28.10.2013, what transpired, is not disclosed in the FIR and also it does not disclose as to why she did not disclose all those things on the first day i.e., on 09.10.2013 itself, when she came back to the house.

Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, there are two controversial statements made by the victim. The learned Sessions Judge has not properly looked into this particular aspect, but he has relied on the medical report, which shows that on 30.10.2013, the victim was subjected to medical treatment and the medical report shows that her Hymen was ruptured, but whether it was due to the sexual assault, is not forthcoming in the report. Even the learned Sessions Judge has not observed, whether there was any injuries on the body of the victim girl. Therefore, it appears the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the materials on record. When there are two divergent First Investigation Reports on record about the incident, in my opinion, it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail as prayed for. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The petition filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.

Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 324/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 354-B, 504, 509, 376A and 376 IPC read with Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act subject to the following conditions:

(a) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order and execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

(b) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.

(c) The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigation Officer as and when required for the purpose of investigation or interrogation.

(d) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Kolar District, without prior permission of the Sessions Judge till the charge sheet is filed.

(e) The petitioner shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Sessions Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.