Ravichandra vs The State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The allegations made against the petitioner is that he being the resident of Kanneshwar village, now residing at Herur village, Hangal taluk. On 21/8/2013 at about 2.00 p.m., the victim girl aged 7 years, daughter of the complainant-Smt. Savita W/o. Revanappa Shadaguppi, came back to the house with dull face. When the complainant asked her, she told that when she was watching the television in the house of the accused, the accused took her on his lap and put his fingers in her private part and scratched her private part. On seeing the private part of the said girl, the complainant suspected some unpleasant situation. She waited for her father till evening and thereafter, took the victim girl to Dr. Uma Hiremath Hospital at Kusanur. Again on the next day also, they went to the hospital. Then, Dr. Uma Hiremath advised them to go to Government Hospital. Then they took the victim girl to Kalakeri Government hospital. Then they were directed to go to Haveri and accordingly, girl child was treated at Haveri. On these allegations, a complaint came to be lodged on 21/8/2012 at 20.30 hours and the police started investigation.

The petitioner was arrested on 22/8/2013. Because of the reason on 20/8/2013 at about 10.30 a.m., the accused was also admitted to the hospital, on the allegations of consumption of poison. On 26/8/2013 he was discharged and he was arrested by the police and since then he has been in judicial custody. The charge sheet paper discloses, though it is stated that the accused has scratched the vagina or the private part of the injured, the Doctor who has examined the said girl issued a medical certificate, which creates some serious doubts at this stage. In the said certificate, the Doctor has stated that no external signs of injury was found and there were no signs of any injury and hymen was intact. Looking to the above said injury certificate, there is absolutely no symptom of any injury to the private part of the said girl. Though the age of the girl is seven years and the material discloses that the accused has done some unpleasant act on the said girl, but, what exactly done has to be trashed out during the course of full dressed trial. When no signs of injuries was there on the private parts of the girl and the accused being arrested on 26/8/2013 and since then, he has been in judicial custody and when he is not required for any further investigation, interrogation as such, charge sheet has already been field, in my opinion, particularly, u/s 439 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Further, added to that, Section 3 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 3(b) though attracted in this particular case, the said offence is not punishable compulsorily with imprisonment for life.

Therefore, considering the specific factual aspect of this particular case, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Hence, the following order is passed:-

ORDER

Petition filed u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Committal Court/trial Court as the case may be.

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) He shall make himself available to the Court on all the future hearing dates unless prevented by any genuine cause.

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.