RAMESHA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections

376, 366A, 506 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered in respondent - police station

Crime No.97/2016.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that in respect of same offences there are two FIRs

registered, which is not permissible under law, and on this ground he has relied upon the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in Crl.A.No.305/2013

(arising out of SLP No.9276 of 2012) in the case of Surender Kaushik and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. It is also his submission

that false allegations are made against the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He has further submitted that looking into the

prosecution material it is the victim girl, who herself phoned to the petitioner and called him to come to a particular place and the petitioner has not

called her. He also submitted that now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. He drew the attention of this Court to the

medical records and submitted that at column No.26 it is mentioned that there are no evidence of external injuries, hence, all these materials prima-

facie show that there is no such alleged act of rape committed on the victim girl. He also submitted that the petitioner is the only bread earner of the

family and since more than 1 1/2 years he is in custody, hence, by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the petition contending that the school records are produced regarding the proof of age of

the victim girl, which shows that as on the date of alleged incident, the victim girl is a minor, hence, consent is immaterial. The victim girl has given

her statement before the Court under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein she has clearly made an allegation that petitioner took her to different places

and committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. He also drew the attention of this Court to the medical records and submitted that it is mentioned

by the Doctor in Col.26(b) regarding the hymen that it is torn and not intact and in Col.29 regarding the opinion it is mentioned that on genital,

physical and genital of Kum.Rekha bearing the above mentioned identification marks, the Doctor is of the opinion that sexual assault has taken

place and final report is kept pending till the arrival of FSL report. If these records are perused, they prima-facie show that there is sexual act on

the victim girl. Hence, he submitted that petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record, more particularly, the statement of

victim girl recorded before the JMFC Court, so also the statement dated 15.06.2016, which is treated as her complaint .

In her statement before the Court, the victim girl made the clear allegation that there is sexual intercourse on her by the petitioner. Regarding her

age, prosecution produced the school certificates, which shows that as on the date of incident, she was a minor, medical records also support the

case that hymen was torn and not intact and there are also symptoms regarding sexual intercourse done on the victim girl. Therefore, prosecution

placed prima-facie material as against the petitioner.

Regarding the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that there are two FIRs registered, which is not permissible under law is

concerned, he can raise the said issue before the concerned trial Court, but while considering the bail petition only on that ground this Court cannot

ignore the other materials, which make out prima-facie case of rape punishable under Section 376 of IPC against the petitioner, hence, I am of the

opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.