S. Shekar vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B, J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner accused u/s 439 Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 366, 344, 376 & 417 of IPC and also Section 6, 3(1)(12), 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 and u/s 8 of the Protection of the Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered in respondent police station Crime No. 27/2013.

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

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, complaint, FIR, order of trial court and all other materials produced by the petitioner along with the petition.

Perusing the complaint averments, it is mentioned by the victim girl that she used to go for walk in the morning and evening time between the Vasanthnagar and Bhogadi Road, the accused who was working in the floor mill near Jananthanagar Vijaya Bank Circle, was torturing the complainant to love her and took her mobile No. The complainant has advised the accused to be friend. In. the mean time the complainant''s family shifted to Tamil Nadu. The petitioner-accused went there also and forced her to marry him. In this regard complainant''s uncle advised the petitioner not to behave in such manner. On 17.01.2014, petitioner-accused came to Sathymangalam at Tamilnadu, met her and by promising her that he would convince his parents and marry her took her to Mysore, wherein he has committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. On the basis of said complaint a case was registered against the present petitioner-accused for the alleged offence.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that now the trial is going on and 4 witnesses were examined even the victim girl also stated in her evidence that she compromised the matter with the petitioner. Further learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that even medical report is also not supporting the case of the prosecution. He has submitted by imposing any reasonable conditions petitioner can be enlarged on bail.

As against this, it is the contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader that there are independent witnesses, Doctor, Investigating Officer they all are to be examined and the medical report goes to show that there is rupture of hymen and also the opinion of the doctor that the victim girl has been used to an act that of Sexual intercourse. Hence he submitted that petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the deposition copy of the PW1 i.e. victim girl produced by the learned counsel. It is no doubt true that in her deposition she stated that she compromised the matter with the petitioner but the offence alleged u/s 376 of IPC is not a compoundable offence. It is serious offence alleged against the petitioner, only on the basis of the statement of PW1 that she compromised the matter with the petitioner at this stage it cannot be concluded that there is no offence committed, still the witnesses are to be examined before the trial court like doctor, Investigating Officer and other independent witnesses are to be considered then only the trial court will be in a better position to come to conclusion whether the offence was really committed or not. At this stage even the trial court cannot come to any conclusion when the trial is still going on. Looking these materials on record, I am of the opinion that petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail at this stage. Accordingly petition is rejected.

However, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner accused that the petitioner is in judicial custody since long time. Hence the learned Sessions Judge is hereby directed to take up the matter on priority basis and to dispose of the main case itself early but not later than two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

High Court Registry is hereby directed to send the copy of this order to the concerned Sessions Judge immediately.