SRI VIJAYKUMAR S/O KRISHNAPPA, Vs STATE BY DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION,

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused

No.2 under Section 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 363, 366, 343, 376

of IPC and also under Sections 4, 6 and 9(l) of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act

registered in respondent police station Crime

No.93/2017.

Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the

complaint averments that the own brother of the victim

girl lodged the complaint, wherein he has stated that his

sister was missing on 29.08.2017, even though they

made search, she was not traced and as the father of

the complainant was suffering from ailments, getting

treatment in the hospital, there is some delay in lodging

the complaint. The further averments in the complaint

show that on 14.09.2017 the sister of the complainant

came to the house and when he enquired her, she told

that one Manjunath (accused No.1) resident of

Devanahalli Town took her by misrepresentation to the

house of his sister at Arasinahalli, Devanahalli Taluk

and there he committed sexual intercourse on her

number of times. This is the allegation made in the

original compliant lodged by the brother of the victim

girl. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to

be registered for the said offences.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

the respondent-State.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on

record.

Looking to paragraph No.2 of the requisition

dated 26.09.2017 made by the Police before the II Addl.

District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District,

it is mentioned that the victim girl was produced before

the counseling centre on 25.09.2017 and she gave the

statement before the counseling centre that from

Manjunath there is no sort of any trouble to her, she

herself went along with the said Manjunath, but when

they were staying at Devanahalli, the owner of the said

house i.e., the petitioner herein, gave sexual

harassment to her, therefore, it is requested to take

action against the petitioner herein through the Police

requisition.

Learned HCGP also relied upon the

statement of the victim girl given under Section 164 of

Cr.P.C. before the JMFC Court at Devanahalli and

submitted that the statement of the victim girl clearly

shows that it is the petitioner, who committed rape on

her, and not Manjunath.

Perusing the said statement of the victim girl

given before JMFC Court, it is stated by the victim girl

that on the last Wednesday the owner Vijay, petitioner

herein, took her forcibly to the house, he removed her

clothes and forcibly committed sexual intercourse on

her. She has further stated that from 29.08.2017 to

14.09.2017 she was staying in the house of sister of

Manjunath, Manjunath had not kidnapped her, she

herself went and Manjunath has not at all committed

intercourse on her. Looking to the statement of the

victim girl and also the contents of the complaint, at

this stage, they are contrary to each other. The

complaint is given by the own brother of the victim girl,

wherein it is mentioned that the complaint is as per the

say made by his sister that it is Manjunath, who alleged

to have committed forcible sexual intercourse on her.

The petitioner has contended in the petition that he is

innocent, not committed the alleged offence and he has

been falsely implicated in the case and he has also

undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by

this Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that by imposing

reasonable conditions, petitioner can be granted with

anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The

respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present

petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection

with Crime No.93/2017 registered for the above said

offence, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and has to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii. Petitioner has to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.

iv. Petitioner has to cooperate with the Investigating agency for the medical examination.

v. The petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.