Vinod Kumar vs State

Budihal R.B, J.—This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused 2 to 4 u/s 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking a direction to the respondent-police that in the event of their arrest, they be released on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 366-A, 506 and 376 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered in respondent-Police Station Crime No. 31 of 2014. Brief facts of the case are that on 18-2-2014 at about 6.15 p.m., the complainant lodged a complaint stating that her husband Venkategowda died about few days ago due to ill-health. Her daughter Kum. D.V. Pooja was born on 9-2-1997 and is a minor. On 10-2-2014 at about 8.00 a.m., her daughter left the house to college. At the time when she reached Sathanur Village, she was taken away forcefully in an Indica car bearing Regn. No. KA-01/L-1520 by Hemanth alias Jana and his friend Vinod Kumar, his brother-in-law Ravi and his sister Smt. Hema and she was illegally confined in their custody. They posed life threat to the complainant if she interferes in the matter of her daughter. They further threatened the complainant not to lodge a complaint and in case any complaint is given against them, they threatened her to get her vacated from the house. On the basis of the complaint, case has been registered by the respondent-police.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused 2 to 4 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the incident was taken place on 10-2-2014, but the complaint was lodged on 18-2-2014. Therefore, there is delay of eight days in lodging the complaint, though the police station is at the distance of 100 yards. He submitted that so far as the alleged offence u/s 376 of IPC is concerned, it is only against accused 1. So far as accused 2 to 4 are concerned, the allegation is that they have kidnapped the daughter of the complainant when she was going to the college. Hence, he submitted that only bald and vague allegations are made against accused 2 to 4 and they are ready to abide by any condition to be imposed by this Court. Hence, he sought for admission of the petitioners to anticipatory bail.

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that looking to the statement of Pooja, the victim girl herein, goes to show that the petitioners are also involved in the commission of the offence of kidnapping and confining her in their custody and thereby they facilitated accused 1 to commit the offence of rape on her. He submitted that the matter is still under investigation and the petitioners are not available for the Investigating Officer for interrogation. Hence, at this stage, the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition and the other materials placed on record. At the first instance, the complaint for filed for the offence under Sections 341, 342, 366-A and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. However, the victim girl and accused 1 were brought to police station and subsequently, the alleged offence u/s 376 of IPC was also inserted in the case. It is no doubt true that looking to the materials placed on record, so far as the alleged offence u/s 376 of IPC is concerned, it is against accused 1, who is arrested and is in custody. Perusing the statement made in the complaint as also the statement of the victim girl, it is stated that these petitioners are also involved in the commission of the offence of kidnapping and wrongful confinement of the victim girl. There is also an allegation that these petitioners facilitated accused 1 to commit the offence of rape on her. The victim girl was aged about 18 years at the time of the incident. So far as delay of eight days is concerned, in the complaint itself, it is mentioned that these accused persons posed life threat to the complainant that if she comes in the way of her daughter and also threatened that they will make her to vacate the house. At this stage, prima facie explanation is offered by the complainant about the delay in lodging the complaint. Therefore, looking to these materials on record in respect of the present petitioners about their involvement in the commission of the alleged offence, the prosecution has placed prima facie materials. The matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

The petition is accordingly rejected.