Ramesh vs The State of Karnataka

B. Manohar, J.—This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking for release of the petitioner on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 of IPC read with sections 4, 6, 8 & 10 of POCSO Act in Crime No. 195/2014.

On the basis of the complaint lodged by the President, Child Welfare Committee, Hassan alleging that a minor girl Dhanalakshmi was raped by the petitioner giving assurance that he will marry her and threaten her to do away with her life if she discloses the said fact. As a result of the said rape, the minor girl became pregnant and gave birth to a female child on 25.07.2014 and sought for an action under sections 4, 6, 8, 10 of POSCO Act and U/S 376 and 506 of IPC. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the Parent and taking into consideration the statement of Dhanalakshmi, a case has been registered against the Petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not involved in any of the offences alleged against him and he was falsely implicated in the said case. The complaint has been lodged 9 months after the incident. Further in the statement of Dhanalakshmi, she has stated that her uncle was also coming to the house. But, no case has been registered against the uncle of Dhanalakshmi and no document has been placed to show that he was involved in the rape case except the statement of Dhanalakshmi.

Sri. Nageshwarappa, learned Government pleader appearing for the respondent argued in support of the order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan and contended that the petitioner has been involved in the offences punishable under sections 376 and 506 of IPC and also under Sections 4, 6, 8 & 10 of POCSO Act. As on the date of the incident, she was a minor. The petitioner inducing the Victim girl that he will marry her, raped her. Hence, he is not entitled for the bail.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan and also the relevant records.

The records clearly disclose that 9 months after the incident, the complaint has been lodged before the jurisdictional police. The police have recorded the statement of said Dhanalakshmi. On the basis of the said statement, a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner. Except the statement of Dhanalakshmi, no other material has been produced. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner is that he was not involved in any of the criminal activities alleged against him and he was falsely implicated in the case. Apart from that, 9 months after the incident, the complaint has been lodged at the instance of some other persons. He further contended that in similar circumstances, this court in Cr.P. No. 3157/2014 disposed of on 29.05.2014 granted the bail. The facts of the case are similar to that of Crl.P. No. 3157/2014 and sought for grant of bail.

The records further disclose that Dhanalakshmi gave birth to a female child on 25.07.2014. Nine months prior to giving birth to the child, the incident might have taken place. The complaint has been lodged 9 months after the incident. Under the similar circumstances this Court in Crl.P. No. 3157/2014 had granted bail. Following the said judgment, I am inclined to grant bail on certain conditions. Accordingly, I pass the following Order :

ORDER

The criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions;

"(a) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

(b) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly seek to influence the prosecution witnesses.

(c) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigation officer as and when required and shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer.

(d) The petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.

(e) In case of violation of any of these conditions, the Court is at liberty to pass suitable orders."