Somashekara vs The State of Karnataka

L. Narayana Swamy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. The petitioner is the sole accused in Cri. No. 49/2015 on the file of Huliyurdurga police Station. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Sections 376 and 306 of IPC. The petitioner is apprehending the arrest at the hands of respondent-police. Therefore, this anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking release in the event of his arrest.

The facts reveal that the complainant is the father of the victim girl/deceased. It is stated in the complaint that he has two daughters by name Anusha and Amrutha and one son by name Vinay and his second daughter Amrutha, aged 17 to 18 years was looking after the goats near Eucalyptus grove. On 24.3.2015, his daughter was sexually assaulted by accused and the said incident was witnessed by one Nagaraju, Manjula and Hemavathi. On hearing the news of sexual assault, the mother of the victim fell unconscious and she was taken to Government hospital, Yadavani. She regained her conscious and again she lost her conscious, thereafter she was taken to Nagamangala Government Hospital. After regaining her conscious, they went to their home. On 25.3.2015, in the morning, when they tried to open the door of the room, it was locked from inside and when they opened the door, it was found that victim had committed suicide by hanging herself by using her veil from the window rod and she was found dead. Hence, on the basis of the same, the above complaint came to be registered.

Learned High Court Government Pleader has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that since from date of the incident, the petitioner is absconding. There are three eye witnesses to the incident and their statements stated to have been recorded and they stated that this petitioner has committed the alleged offence. He has further argued that post-mortem was conducted and it reveals that there are abrasions and some injuries have been found on the body. Therefore, he requests the court to dismiss the bail application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the victim girl had affair with this petitioner and they were planning to get married after due permission from their parents. But their parents had not given their consent for their marriage. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence. The injuries found on the body of the deceased as per the PM report discloses that the injuries were on the shoulder and upper portion of the body and it does not disclose anything about the sexual assault on the deceased. He further submits that the complainant''s family belongs to Veerashiva (Sheety Community), they are pure vegetarian and grazing cattle and goats does not arise. Consequently, the complainant stated that on hearing the news of sexual assault on the victim girl/deceased, her mother fell unconscious, she was taken to hospital and she has been admitted in Government hospital at Nagamangala on 24.03.2015 and 25.03.2015. A certificate has been obtained from that hospital i.e., Primary Health Centre at Kunigal, which itself reveals that the mother of the deceased was never treated as an inpatient and it reveals that she has not suffered any illness. Learned counsel further submits that a false complaint has been made against this petitioner. Hence, he requests the Court to allow the bail application.

I have gone through the petition and PM report. When the eye witnesses who have seen the incident namely Nagaraju, Manjula and Hemavathi, they could have made complaint on the same day. The complainant''s family belongs to Veershiva (Shetty) community, as per the common knowledge, they are pure vegetarians; hence grazing the goats is to be ascertained. When the mother of the deceased fell ill and a certificate has also been produced to that effect, which itself shows that no such person is given treatment in the said hospital. There is a delay in lodging the complaint. Apart from this, the petitioner has undertaken to obey any conditions which may be imposed on him. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail in Cri. No. 49/2015, for the offences punishable under Sections 376 & 306 of IPC, on the file of Huliyurdurga police station, subject to the following conditions:--

(1) Petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety, for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

(2) Petitioner shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses in any manner;

(3) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on 24.08.2015 at 10:30 a.m. without fail and shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer in conducting further investigation;

(4) Petitioner shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses or lure them in any manner and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(5) Petitioner shall mark his attendance before investigating officer on every Sunday between 10:30 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. for a period of two months.

(6) Petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activities.

(7) If he violates any of the above conditions, prosecution will be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.