Punith @ Ragavendra Rao vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 53/12 of Kadugodi Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC. According to the case of the prosecution, the victim K. Anjali daughter of Kodandaramaih, resident of Belathuru Colony, Kadugodi, Bangalore, who left the house at about 8.00 p.m. on 8.5.2012, did not return home. The parents though made search for her, she was not traced. Therefore, father lodged a report on 10.5.2012 about missing of his daughter from the house. In the said report, he expressed suspicion against this petitioner as the person responsible for missing. On the basis of the said report, police registered the aforesaid case initially for the offence punishable u/s 366 of IPC against this petitioner. However, in spite of search made by police, neither the victim nor this petitioner was traced till 27.9.2012. On 27.9.2012, this petitioner was apprehended and later at his instance they traced the victim in a rented house near Chikkajala. She was brought to the police station and thereafter subjected to medical examination. At that time, she was found pregnant of 10 - 11 weeks. Thereafter her statement was recorded and later the petitioner was subjected to judicial custody. It appears the Investigating Officer on completion of investigation, has filed the charge sheet.

The application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, he is before this Court.

Petition is opposed by the respondent - State.

I have heard both sides and perused the records made available.

According to the materials available on record, the date of birth of the victim is 30.7.1994. On that basis, it is alleged that as on the date of the victim going out of the house for the last time she was aged about 17 years and 9 months. Perusal of the medical certificate produced along with the charge sheet prima facie indicates that the victim at the time of her examination before the Doctor gave the history as under:

Patient/victim Anjali knows Raghavendra Rao, 25 years since 1 year. She eloped with the above alleged person with her consent on 8.5.2012 at 8.00 p.m. to Chikkajala to a rented house. They married on 19.5.2012 in temple (Akkayyanabetta). Victim had first intercourse on 19.5.2012 with the above alleged person with her consent. Following which she had many times consented intercourse, exact number not known.

Raghavendra had come for some work to Kadugodi on 27.9.2012 and was arrested by police and the victim was brought to Police Station on 28.9.2012 (Kadugodi).

Patient does not know exact date of last intercourse. Patient has taken bath yesterday on 28.9.2012.

The above statement prima facie indicates that the victim and this petitioner were in love and they eloped on 8.5.2012 and later married and lived as husband and wife till 27.9.2012 during which period on many occasions they had sexual relationship and on account of the same, she also became pregnant. Of course, as on the date of elopement, the victim was aged less than 18 years. However, she was more than 16 years and was capable of giving consent. The above statement given by the victim before the Doctor prima facie indicates that she was a consenting party for the sexual act and she stayed with the petitioner voluntarily. Of course during investigation, the Investigating Officer said to have recorded the statement of the victim according to which she was taken by this petitioner under threat. However, her statement prima facie indicates that her parents after coming to know about the love affair between her and this petitioner, quarreled with her objecting for the love affair and had arranged her marriage with another boy which was not to her liking. It was with a view to avoid the said marriage against her will and to get out of the harassment meted out to her by her parents, she appears to have gone out of the house and eloped with the petitioner.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, I am of the considered opinion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the aforesaid offences. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with case in Crime No. 53/12 of Kadugodi Police Station, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate/Sessions Judge and subject to the further conditions that:

i) He shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner;

ii) He shall appear before the trial court on all hearing dates without fail;

iii) He shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged in the case and

iv) He shall not go out of the jurisdiction of the court of sessions without express permission thereof.