Karnataka High Court
Ele Chidananda S/O. Late ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 July, 2021
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 06 T H DAY OF JULY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101088/2021
BETWEEN:
ELE CHIDANANDA S/O. LATE SHARABAIAH,
AGE 38 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. WARD NO.1, SOMLAPURA VILLAGE,
KURUGODU TALUKA,
BALLARI DISTRICT - 583101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.C.KNANAYYA SWAMI, ADV OCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
(BY ITS KURUGOD P.S .)
REPRES ENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLI C
PROSECUT OR, HIGH COURT KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BEN CH, AT DHARWAD- 580001
... RES PONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI , HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYIN G TO ALLOW THI S
PETITION AND EN LARGE THE PETITI ONER ON BAIL IN
CRIME NO.62/ 2021 REGISTERED IN KURUGOD POLICE
STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNIS HABLE UNDER SEC
TION 376(2)(L) , 506 OF IPC, PENDI NG TRIAL OF THE
CASE.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the sole accused
under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime
No.62/2021 of Kurugod Police Station,
registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 376(2)(l), 506 of The Indian Penal
Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for
brevity).
2. The case of the prosecution is that,
one Smt. Ele Parvathamma filed complaint
stating that, she is residing in Somalapur
village and her husband is no more and he died
18 years ago and she is having a
daughter/victim-girl aged 25 years and she is
of unsound mind. It is further stated that, the
complainant is doing coolie work and she used
to go for coolie work leaving his
daughter/victim-girl alone in the house. It is
further stated that, on 03.03.2021, when the
victim-girl was in the house and was taking
food, at that time the petitioner along with his
daughter entered the house and the petitioner
kept quite till the completion of food by the
victim. After the completion of food, when the
victim-girl was going to clean her plate, at that
time, the petitioner/accused closed the door
and when he started to come near the victim-
girl, at that time, the victim asked him why he
closed the door and also told him not to do
anything to her. The petitioner/accused made
her to lie on the ground and when she refused
to sleep, he forcibly caught hold her and closed
her mouth and committed rape on her and also
threatened her not to disclose about the said
act to anybody, failing which, he is going to
take away her life and the life of her mother.
Thereafter, the victim-girl made hue and cry
and the petitioner/accused escaped from the
said place. After hearing the said sound, the
brother of the victim-girl by name Ambaresh,
Parasuram and Shivaraj came to the spot and
asked her and the victim-girl narrated the
above fact. The said complaint came to be
registered in Crime No.62/2021 for the
aforesaid offences. The petitioner came to be
arrested on 16.03.2021 and remanded to
judicial custody. The petitioner filed Criminal
Miscellaneous No.221/2021 seeking bail and
the same came to be rejected by the I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari,
by order dated 23.04.2021. Thereafter, the
petitioner is before this Court, seeking bail.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and the learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. It would be the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that, the
petitioner is innocent, has not committed any
offence as alleged and he has been falsely
implicated in the case. The alleged incident has
taken place on 03.03.2021 and the complaint
has been filed after 12 days i.e. on 15.03.2021
and there is a delay in filing the complaint and
it has not been explained. There was a
property dispute between the complainant and
the accused and the accused had filed a civil
suit in O.S.No.283/2012, seeking permanent
injunction against the mother of the victim-girl
and the same came to be decreed by the Civil
Judge and JMFC Court, Ballari by the Judgment
dated 23.06.2018. As there was a civil dispute,
to take revenge, a false complaint came to be
filed against the petitioner. The victim-girl in
her statement recorded under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C., has stated that the petitioner/accused
scratched on her leg and chest, but there is no
corresponding injury in the medical certificate
of the victim-girl. The victim-girl is mentally
retarded and epilepsy is 75% and on looking to
the said percentage she may not be able to
remember and disclose the incident to others.
The petitioner/accused is aged 38 years and he
is a married person having wife and children.
The charge-sheet has been filed and therefore,
the petitioner is not required for any custodial
interrogation. With this, he prayed to allow the
petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court
Government Pleader contended that the offence
alleged against the petitioner is a heinous
offence, punishable with imprisonment for life.
The victim-girl in her statement recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C., has specifically stated
the overt act of the petitioner/accused. The
Doctor who examined the victim-girl has noted
that the hymen is ruptured. On perusal of the
entire charge-sheet material, there is a prima-
facie case against the petitioner for the
offences alleged against him. If the petitioner
is granted bail, he will tamper the prosecution
witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he
prayed to reject the petition.
6. Having regard to the submission
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned High Court Government
Pleader, this Court has gone through the
charge sheet records.
7. The incident is stated to have
occurred on 03.03.2021 and as per the
averments of the complaint, on the same day
she has intimated it to her mother. The mother
of the victim-girl filed complaint on
15.03.2021. There is a delay in filing the
complaint. The said delay has some relevance
as there was a civil dispute between the
complainant and the petitioner/accused in
O.S.no.283/2012 decreed on 23.06.2018. The
petitioner/accused is the father's brother of the
victim-girl. The victim-girl in her statement
recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., has
stated that, the petitioner/accused has
scratched on her leg and chest, but on looking
to the medical certificate, there is no injury on
her chest. But there is a scar mark on her leg.
The charge-sheet has been filed and therefore,
the petitioner is not required for any custodial
interrogation. The petitioner is in judicial
custody since 15.03.2021. There are no
criminal antecedents of the petitioner. The
main objection of the prosecution is that, in
the event of grant of bail, the petitioner is
likely to threaten the complainant and other
prosecution witness. The said objection may be
set right by imposing stringent conditions.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the
case and submission of the counsel, this Court
is of the view that there are valid grounds for
granting bail subject to certain terms and
conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the
petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in
Crime No.62/2021 of Kurugod Police Station
subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner/accused shall execute
a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only)
with one surety for the like sum to
the satisfaction of the jurisdictional
Court
ii) The petitioner/accused shall not
indulge in tampering the prosecution
witnesses.
iii) The petitioner/accused shall attend
the Court on all the dates of hearing
unless exempted and co-operate in
speedy disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*Svh/-
