Ranjith and Kiran vs State

K.N.Keshavanarayana

In this petition filed u/s 439 Cr.P.C., petitioner Nos.1 and 2, arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.86/2012 of Maddur Police Station, Mandya District registered initially for the offences punishable under Sections 366A and 114 read with 34 IPC and subsequently offence punishable u/s 376 IPC having been added, have sought for relief of bail since their application filed before the learned Sessions Judge for similar relief came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. According to the case of the prosecution, one lodged a report on 7.2.2012 to the effect that his niece (elder sister''s daughter) who left the house at 9L00 a.m. on the previous day stating that she would go to the school, has not come back. He also suspected that the girl must have been kidnapped by one Raiijith son of Krishnegowda, the first petitioner herein and his associates namely Ramesh son of Somanna and Kiran son of Chandru. the second petitioner herein. Based on the said report, the, aforesaid case came to be registered and investigation was taken up. During investigation, the victim as well as accused No.1 were traced together in Vanachal Tea Estate at Galibeedu on 22.2.2012. Thereafter, the statement of the victim was recorded and accused No 1 was subjected to judicial custody. Subsequently, the second petitioner was also apprehended and later subjected to judicial custody. On the basis of the statement of the victim, on offence u/s 376 IPC was also added since her statement revealed that she had been subjected to sexual act by the first petitioner while they were staying in labourer''s quarters situated in Vanachal Tea Estate.

The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.

I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.

It is brought to the notice of this Court that after completing investigation, now the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted as under:

At this stage, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are guilty of any of the offences alleged and on the other hand statement of the victim itself would demonstrably indicate that it was she who enticed accused No.1 to go with her and the circumstances would prima facie indicate consent on the part of the victim; that since the investigation is already over and the since the presence of the accused / petitioners is not required for any investigation, no point would be served by keeping these young boys in custody; that the petitioners being young boys aged about 21 and 22 years if kept in prison in the company of hard core criminals, their entire carrier would be marred and spoiled. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail.

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader vehemently opposed for grant of bail and contended as under:

At this stage, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners kidnapped the victim who was hardly aged about 14 years as on that day and the intention of kidnapping was to force her to marry accused No.1 and to seduce her to sexual intercourse; that the statement of the victim would further prima facie indicate that she had been subjected to forcible sexual act by accused No.1 and since she was aged less than 16 years, even if the circumstance entails drawing of consent, it would not be consent in the eye of law as such the act committed by accused No.1 would be an offence of rape within the meaning of Section 375 punishable u/s 376 of IPC; that having regard to the nature and gravity of the offences as well as the punishment prescribed for the same, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief of bail; that though the petitioners are young boys, having regard to the materials available on record, there is 2.xii-n prospect of conviction, as such, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of petitioners tampering the prosecution evidence and also there is likelihood of fleeing away from justice, thereby hampering trial of the case, therefore, release of the petitioners on bail in the light of the materials on record would send a wrong signal to the society and it may encourage the potential offenders in the society to commit similar offence. Therefore, the release of the petitioner on bail is not warranted.

I have bestowed my serious consideration to the submissions made on both sides.

Having ''infused the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records made available, I am of the considered opinion that at this stage there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are guilty of the offences alleged. The statement of the victim running about 4 pages would prima facie indicate that she was forcibly kidnapped from near Vijaya Convent, Goravanahalli Tank Road, Maddur Town by these two petitioners and another at about 9.00 a.m. on 6.2.2012 while she was going towards school by threatening to kill her and from there she was taken to different places, and on 7.2.2012 accused No.1 tied trail around her neck at Dharmasthala and from there she was taken to Tirupathi, then to Madikeri and after getting a job in Tea Estate near Madikere they stayed in labourer''s quarters during which period accused No.1 committed sexual acts on her and on 22.2.2012 they were traced there by the police and brought to the Police Station. The materials on record prima facie indicate that the victim is hardly aged about 13 years 9th she was studying in 8th standard. Thus the victim was a minor less than 16 years of age. As rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader, from the contents of the statement of the victim even if an inference of consent on the part of the victim is prima facie possible, having regard to the age of the victim, it would be no consent in the eye of law. Therefore, the act said to have been committed by accused No.1 on the victim prima facie attracts the offence of rape as defined u/s 375 IPC punishable u/s 376 of IPC. Having regard to the statement of the victim, there are prima facie evidence to indicate that she was kidnapped by accused No.1 and his two friends with an intention to force her to marry and then to seduce her to forcible sexual intercourse. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on record at this stage, there are reasonable grounds to believe that these two petitioners are guilty of the offences alleged.

No doubt, the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been laid. Therefore, it can be said that presence of the petitioner for investigation is not required. However that by itself is no ground to grant bail. If such an argument is to be accepted, then in every case involving heinous offence also after completing investigation and filing of final report, the accused is required to be released on bail. It is well settled principles of law that grant or refusal of prayer for bail depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case depending upon the nature and gravity of the offences, the effect of such offence on the society, the possibility of the offender tampering the evidence and absconding etc. The Courts are also required to keep in mind as to whether the release of any such offenders is against the public or societal interest. No doubt, these two petitioners are young boys. However, their young age itself cannot be a ground to release them on bail on the ground that if they are kept in the company of hard core criminals they are likely to turn as hard core criminals. The act of sexual offence, as ruled by the Apex Court, not only affects the person of the victim but also affects the fabric of the society. Therefore, release of such offenders on bail would certainly send a wrong signal to the society in general and potential offenders in particular. In a case of this nature where the court has found prima facie materials against these petitioners for the heinous offence of kidnapping a minor girl, marrying her forcibly and then subjecting her to sexual act, are released on bail, it would certainly undermine the institution of dispensation of justice in the eyes of the general public. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the materials available on record and in the light of the discussions made above, T am of the considered opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief of bail. It is brought to the notice of this Court that accused No.2 has been granted bail by this Court. Therefore, it was contended that principles of parity be extended to this petitioner. I find no substance in this contention. This court, of course, has granted bail to accused No.2 in. Crl.P.No.1981/2012. While granting bail to accused No 2, this Court has noticed that even in the lengthy statement of the victim running to 4 pages there is not even a mention of name of accused No. 2 in the whole of the episode. It was under those circumstances this Court has granted bail to accused No. 2. However as noticed supra, the statement of the victim prima facie indicates complicity of these two petitioners in the commission of the offence. Therefore, principles of parity cannot be applied to these petitioners

In this view of the matter, the petition is rejected.