Pranesh vs State Of Karnataka

K.Natarajan, J

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting regular bail in Crime No.11/2021 registered by Karkala

Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 and 506 of IPC.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

The case of the prosecution is that the victim herself filed a complaint before the Police on 20.01.2021 alleging that the accused came in contact

with the complainant and he used to drop her to the college. During January 2020, when the victim proceeding to the college, in the mid way, the

accused came in his car and said that he will drop her to college and the victim went along with him to college. The accused without stopping the

vehicle near the college took her to some other place on the way and provided lemon juice to her. Due to which, she became unconscious. When she

got conscious, she was in a tile roofed room. At that time, she was in a naked position and the accused said that he already had an intercourse with

her and also said to be taken videograph of the same and nude photos of the victim and later the accused threatened her that if she disclosed the said

incident to anybody, he will upload the same in the social media. On 12.01.2021, the accused made the victim to sit in his motorcycle and took her to

the house of his employer and committed rape on her. Thereafter, the complaint came to be filed on 20.01.2021. After registering the case, the Police

arrested the accused on 21.01.2021 and remanded to the judicial custody. The Police have already completed the investigation and charge-sheet has

also been filed. The accused approached the Sessions Court for granting bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the further statement of the victim and the complaint made before the Police differs from

each other as she has improved and changed her version. There is no stupefied substance mixed in the lemon juice and she never became

unconscious but she was sleeping in the car and she also changed the place of occurrence from Uppinangady to Belthangady. There is no photograph

or videograph seized by the Police. Even under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she has changed and given different version of statement. The medical

evidence also differs from each other. There is no recent sexual assault as per the medical report. The investigation is already completed and charge-

sheet has been filed. He is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for granting bail.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected the bail petition and prayed for rejecting the bail petition.

Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, which goes to show that no doubt the victim is aged about 20 years has filed a complaint

on 20.01.2021 alleging that the incident took place from 1.1.2021 to 12.1.2021 and as per the complaint, the accused has mixed some stupefied

substance in the lemon juice and when she became unconscious, the accused sexually assaulted her and took the vediograph of the same and

photographs of the victim without her knowledge and in the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., made before the Police, she has changed her

version that there is no such substance mixed in the lemon juice. She was sleeping and went along with the accused and they both had an intercourse

in a room. However, she has stated that there is no photograph or videograph taken by the accused while sexually assaulting her. The statement made

by the victim before the doctor shows that 10 to 15 times she had intercourse with the accused from November 2019. The medical record goes to

show that there is no recent intercourse. However, she has subjected to the sexual assault. Though the final report of the doctor reveals that the last

intercourse is on 12.01.2021, but the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., says that she has given different version of statement. The investigation

is already completed and charge-sheet is also filed. He is in custody for more than two months. His presence may not be required for the purpose of

investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner also produced the photographs of both accused and the victim which shows that they have posed to

the photo together and it appears that it was consensual sex which is not ruled out. The age of the victim is 20 years. Therefore, without expressing

any opinion regarding the merits of the case, by imposing certain conditions, if the bail is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice would be caused to the

prosecution case. Hence, I pass the following

ORDER

Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed.

The Committal Court/trial Court is directed to release the petitioner-accused on bail in Crime No.11/2021 registered by Karkala Town Police Station

for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 and 506 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the

satisfaction of the trial Court/Committal Court;

(ii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;

(iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly;

(iv) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer once in 15 days on every 2nd and 16th of the Calendar month between 10.00

a.m. and 4.00 p.m., for a period of three months or till appearance of the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge after committal.