Dismissed

Ramesh S/O Narsappa Waddar v. the State of Karnataka through

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2017CRL.P/200882/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving sexual assault on a minor, holding that absent medical evidence and ongoing investigation, release is improper despite claims of consent and maturity.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed without being released on bail; liberty to file another application after charge sheet filing.

Ramesh S/O Narsappa Waddar Vs the State of Karnataka through — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.200882/2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ramesh S/o Narsappa Waddar Aged about 22 years, Occ: Auto – Driver R/o Konapur Village, Tq. Sedam District Kalaburagi – 585 325

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri S.S.Aspalli, Advocate)

¶11

And:

¶12

The State of Karnataka Through Mudhol Police Station Tq. Sedam, Dist. Kalaburagi – 585 325 Represented by Addl. SPP

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

(By Sri Prakash Yeli, Addl. SPP)

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., praying to allow the bail petition and release the petitioner on bail in Crime No.106/2017 of Mudhol Police Station, Tq. Sedam and Dist. Kalaburagi, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 376 of IPC and under Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, pending before II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi.

¶16

This petition is coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.106/2017 of Mudhol Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 376 of IPC and also for the offences punishable under Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶20

Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are

¶21

that, the complainant has completed 10^th standard in Government High School, Kolkunda village and she used to go to school from her native place. About five to six months prior to the filing of complaint, the complainant came in contact with the petitioner and she used to go in the autorickshaw of the petitioner and they used to talk with each other over telephone. They developed relationship with each other. About three to four months prior to filing of the complaint, the petitioner came near the house of the complainant, both went to the land situated behind the house and the petitioner told the

¶22

¶23

complainant that he is loving her and he will marry her and committed rape on her. Thereafter, complainant and the petitioner used to move together. It is further alleged that one week prior to filing of the complaint, the complainant and the petitioner planned to run away from the house to go Bangalore as the petitioner was loving the complainant and he wanted to marry her. In that light, on 14.06.2017, the complainant went to Konapur gate and the petitioner also came to Konapur gate in his autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-32/C-356 and from there, they went to Sedam Railway Station and from there, they went to Bangalore in the train. It is also alleged that on 15.06.2017 the complainant and the petitioner reached to Bangalore and they went to the house of one Sharanappa who is relative of the petitioner and stayed there. On 15.06.2017, in the night, the complaint and the petitioner slept in a room and the petitioner committed rape on the complainant. On 16.06.2017, the petitioner received a phone call from his brother informing that the parents of the complainant

¶24

¶25

have filed a complaint before the police. Hence, he returned along with the complainant to the native place. Brothers of the petitioner took the victim to the house of the parents in Mudhol in a jeep and left there. Thereafter, the statement of the victim was recorded.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

¶27

The main grounds urged by the learned counsel

¶28

for the petitioner are that, since last six months, petitioner and the complainant used to love with each other and the said sexual assault is with the consent of the victim. He would contend that the complainant was having love affair with the petitioner and they were moving together and she was aged 17 years and as such, they were matured enough to know the consequences. He would further contend that there is no medical evidence as against the petitioner for having committed the alleged offences. He would also contend that since from the date of arrest i.e.,

¶29

¶30

18.06.2017 the petitioner is in judicial custody and major portion of the investigation has been completed and the petitioner is no more required for the purpose of investigation or interrogation. He would also contend that petitioner is a respectable member of the society and he has got both movable and immovable properties, therefore, there is no chance of he being absconded. He would further contend that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and he is ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶31

On the contrary, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently contended that petitioner knowingfully well that the victim is a minor, he pretended as if he is loving her and intending to marry her and sexually assaulted her by taking her to various places. The provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 are attracted and the said offence is considered to be serious

¶32

¶33

offence. Therefore, the petitioner may not be released on bail. He would further contend that investigation is still under progress and the Investigating Agency has to file charge sheet as against the petitioner. Under the circumstances, if the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses, he may abscond and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶34

I have carefully perused the FIR, complaint and

¶35

other material produced along with the petition.

¶36

As could be seen from the records, six months prior to filing of the complaint, the complainant and the petitioner fell in love with each other and three to four months prior to filing of the complaint, they had sex under the pretext that petitioner is going to marry her and thereafter, they went to Bangalore and there also, the petitioner had sexually assaulted on the victim. There is clear case that petitioner has sexually assaulted the victim. Though the petitioner has sexually assaulted on

¶37

¶38

the pretext of he intending to marry her, when the investigation is still under progress and medical evidence is also not forthcoming before this Court, it is not just and proper to release the petitioner on bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

¶39

However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file appropriate application after the charge sheet is filed.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

NB* Ct: vk

Ramesh S/O Narsappa Waddar v. the State of Karnataka through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh S/O Narsappa Waddar v. the State of Karnataka through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fayaz Husen S/O Makbool @ Khabula Husen and Ors. Vs the State through Raichur West Police Station

Javeed S/O Nabilal Bagewadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Balappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Gundappa S/O Kallappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Anil S/O Seetaram Lamani Vs the State of Karnataka

Muralidhar S/O Ramrao Shekwale, Vs the State of Karnataka