Rathana Raj vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B, J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner-accused u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420 and 506 of IPC registered by the respondent-police in Crime No. 195/2014.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-state.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument made the submission that the victim is the complainant in this case. Even, if the complaint allegations are taken to be true for the sake of argument and appreciation, it goes to show that the alleged sexual intercourse started from the year 2012. Hence, learned counsel made the submission that the complaint is filed in the year 2014 after the lapse of two years. He also made the submission that now, in the complaint it is alleged that number of times the present petitioner committed sexual intercourse on her and even she was taken to the hospital and there was abortion when she was carrying. Learned counsel further submits that these allegations are not supported by the medical evidence because the Doctor opined that hymn is intact. Hence, counsel submitted that false allegations are made and present petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Therefore, by imposing reasonable conditions the present petitioner may be admitted to bail.

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his argument made the submission that looking to the complaint averment, it goes to show that the present petitioner making a promise to the complainant had sexual intercourse with her number of times and thereby he has committed the alleged offence of rape on her. He also made the submission that the complaint averments further goes to show that because of the sexual intercourse committed on her she becomes pregnant and even the present petitioner took her to the hospital and there was abortion. Learned HCGP further made the submission that the matter is still under investigation and Investigating Officer has to collect some more material and from the date of the alleged incident, the petitioner is absconding and hence, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case. It is mentioned in the complaint that in the year 2012, when the complainant went to VAT office at Vijayanagara to submit her returns she came in contact with the present petitioner. It is also mentioned that said acquaintance turned to love affair. I have also perused further allegations made in the complaint, though it is stated in the complaint that the alleged incident started from the year 2012 but till filing of the present complaint, in the meantime there were no any allegations or any sort of complaint is filed against the present petitioner. The alleged incident took place in the year 2012 itself but the complainant kept silent for all these years and there afterwards now, she come up with the present complaint. Perusing the order passed by the lower Court on the bail application on page No. 19 of the said order it is observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution has produced provisional medical certificate. Hence, hymn was shown as intact. Therefore, at this stage, these materials support the contention of the present petitioner. The petitioner contended that false allegations are made against him and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He also undertaken in the bail petition that he is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Looking to these materials on record, even if it is assumed that sexual intercourse between complainant as well as the present petitioner, prima facie, it goes to show that it is consensual in nature and as mentioned in the complaint, the complainant is aged about 25 years. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner can be admitted to bail.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-police are directed to release the petitioner-accused on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420 and 506 of IPC registered by the respondent-police in Crime No. 195/2014, subject to the following conditions:

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

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for; and

(iv) The petitioner shall mark his attendance before respondent-police station once in every fortnight preferably on Sunday between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon till the completion of investigation and filing of the charge sheet; and

(v) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within thirty days from the date of this order and execute the personal bond and also the surety bond.