M.G. Shashi and J.G. Aiyappa vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This petition is filed by petitioners-accused Nos. 2 and 4 u/s 439 of Cr. P.C. seeking their release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 324, 366A, 376(2)(G), 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(11), 3(2)(5) of SC and ST (POA) Act registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 45/2012.

The brief facts of the prosecution case as per the averments in the complaint are that on 23.7.2012 after returning from the work from one Monnappa''s estate in the evening at 5.00 p.m. complainant along with her brother Choma, sister-in-law Chimmi had been to market at Srimangala and purchased some house hold articles and while returning to home at 7.15 p.m. near a petrol bunk, an auto-rickshaw bearing No. KA12 A 6351 came from backside and the driver Chengappa pulled the complainant into auto-rickshaw; when the brother and sister-in-law of the complainant objected the same, Chengappa assaulted them with a stick and rod and all the five members forcefully made the complainant to sit inside the auto-rickshaw and took her to a coffee estate near Korkottu Aiyappa Temple and accused Chengappa removed her clothes and all the five members together committed rape on her one after another. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered against the petitioners and other accused persons.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments submitted that alleged incident took place on 23.7.2012 whereas, the complaint was filed on 25.7.2012 and there is two days delay in lodging the complaint. It is further submitted that the other two persons who were along with victim girl have not at all made any effort to call the public for help or to ascertain to which place the victim girl was taken. The conduct of these two persons is also important while considering the bail application. He has also submitted that victim girl was subjected to medical examination and the Doctor''s opinion is negative, so also, the FSL opinion is also negative and not supporting the case of the prosecution. Even the clothes of the victim girl were not sent for examination. Hence, it is submitted that petitioners are innocent and they are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court and by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments has submitted that even earlier petitioners have approached this Court seeking their release on bail, which was rejected and there is a prima facie material placed by the prosecution. Hence, petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, the order passed by the lower Court on the bail application and other materials placed on record.

As submitted by the learned Government Pleader, earlier also petitioner No. 1 herein had approached this Court by filing the petition in Crl. P. No. 3106/2013, which was subsequently withdrawn. Again the present petitioners have approached this Court seeking release on bail and this Court by its order dated 8.2.2013 in Crl. P. No. 7314/2012 considered the entire merits of the case and ultimately, has rejected the bail petition holding that there is a prima facie material placed by the prosecution against all the petitioners.

Therefore, when the merits of the case has already been considered and the earlier petitions have been rejected, in this present petition no changed circumstances have been made out by the petitioners. There is no merit in the petition.

Accordingly, petition is rejected.