Raheemuddin Kandgulwale vs State of Karnataka

Aravind Kumar, J.—1. Heard Sri Sudheer Kulkarni, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri Prakash Yeli, learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent. Perused the records.

Petitioner has been arraigned as accused in Crime No. 17/2015 registered by Bemalkheda Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 201 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi)(xii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

It was alleged in the complaint by complainant Smt. Ambika that on 07.04.2015 she was kidnapped by the accused person and taken to a lodge at Kalaburagi and he had forcible sexual intercourse with her and subsequently she was shifted to a lodge at Hyderabad wherein again accused person had committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. It is also stated by her that on 10.04.2015 she was brought back to her native place Bemalkhed and as such she lodged the complaint before jurisdictional police. Based on the complaint lodged by her, jurisdictional police having investigated the matter and have filed charge sheet against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 201 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi)(xii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

As rightly contended by learned Advocate appearing for petitioner that complainant had given her further statement before jurisdictional police on 16.04.2015, stating that she was in love with accused person and both of them had decided to elope and get married and as such she has stated in her further statement that she had ran away with the accused person. Contents of further statement dated 16.04.2015 does not remotely suggest about accused having either assaulted the complainant or having forced her to have sexual intercourse (without her consent) with him. It is for prosecution to prove charge before the jurisdictional Court and as such at this stage relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be denied and the fact that petitioner and victim being from same village also cannot be lost sight of, to doubt the contents of the complaint. Complainant has also stated that petitioner had assured and promised her to marry and she also states in her further statement that petitioner was already married to one Smt. Shaheena Begaum about three years prior to incident in question. When complainant and accused are from same village, she cannot feign ignorance about accused not being married. They are all attendant circumstances which would create cloud over the complainant''s version.

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

a) Criminal Petition is hereby allowed.

b) Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Special Case No. 62/2015 pending on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bidar, on petitioner executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of jurisdictional Court and subject to following conditions:

i) Petitioner shall not tamper or terrorize prosecution witnesses in any manner whatsoever;

ii) Petitioner shall not leave jurisdiction of Court without express permission;

iii) Petitioner shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged;

iv) Petitioner without seeking exemption shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all dates of hearing except under exceptional circumstances;

v) If petitioner violates any of the conditions, prosecution would be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail;

Ordered accordingly.