Karnataka High Court
Sangamesh Saradagi vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 January, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201709/2021
BETWEEN:
SANGAMESH SARADAGI
S/O. HONNAPPA SARADAGI
AGED 26 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O.KACHAPUR, TQ: YADRAMI
DISTRICT:KALABURAGI-585 101. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ALMEL POLICE STATION
TQ: ALMEL, DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 202
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585 107. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP;
SRI R.S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.99/2021 OF ALMEL POLICE STATION, VIJAYAPUR
DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
376(1), 417 AND 506 OF IPC.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
'THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE' THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-
State and Sri R.S. Lagali, learned counsel for
victim/complainant.
2. This bail petition is a successive bail petition filed
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the
petitioner/accused in Crime No.99/2021 of Almel Police Station,
Vijayapur District (C.C. No.1080/2021) for the offence
punishable under Sections 376(1), 417 and 506 of IPC on the
rejection of the earlier bail petition in Criminal Petition
No.201387/2021 dated 26.10.2021, wherein this Court has
taken note of the statement of the victim girl recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. This Court, while rejecting the bail petition
has also observed that, there is no medical evidence before the
Court whether she was subjected to sexual act recently or
earlier. But, on perusal of the medical report, she was subjected
to examination on 08.08.2021 and hence, it is clear that there
was a gap of almost three months between the alleged sexual
assault on her and the medical examination.
3. This Court also further observed that, having
considered the medical opinion and also the fact that she was
subjected to sexual assault, it is appropriate to take further
opinion from the medical expert as to whether she was subjected
to sexual act or not and the said material is necessary to
consider the petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Still the
matter is under investigation and hence, at this juncture, it is
not a fit case to exercise discretion under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
4. Having rejected the petition, the present petition is
filed by the petitioner contending that there is no other criminal
antecedent against this petitioner and though the matter was
settled, marriage could not take place because of Covid-19
Pandemic. The counsel would further contend that the
prosecutrix has improved her version in 164 statement and
further contend that there are no external injuries found on the
complainant. Now, the present petition is filed bringing more
material on record to invoke jurisdiction under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C.
5. The counsel also rely upon the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of BABUSINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF
UP reported in AIR 1978 SC 527 and seeks for an order to
enlarge the petitioner on bail.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent-State would submit that when this
Court while rejecting the petition has observed to collect further
report whether she was subjected to sexual act or not, the victim
was subjected to medical examination on 30.12.2021. Now, the
material is very clear that she was subjected to sexual act that
too, full penetration and also hymen was torn and the same
substantiates the allegation made in the complaint as well as
164 statement made by the victim. Hence, it is not a fit case to
grant bail in favour of the petitioner.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent-State and also looking into the order passed by
this Court dated 26.10.2021, wherein this Court has observed
that it is appropriate to take further opinion from the medical
expert as to whether she was subjected to sexual act or not and
now the material is available before the Court that she was
subjected to sexual act.
8. When such being the factual aspects of the matter,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner tried to convince
this Court that both the petitioner and complainant have
cohabitated with each other. However, this Court has to look
into the contents of the complaint, wherein specific allegation is
made that she was taken to lemon plantation garden and the
petitioner subjected her for sexual intercourse against her wish
and forced her assuring that he would marry her and repeatedly,
he used to take her to the said place stating that, he would
marry her and subjected her for sexual act. When such
allegations are made and considering the material available on
record, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of
the petitioner. Now, after collecting further report, it
corroborates the case of the prosecution that she was subjected
to sexual act.
9. However, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader
for the respondent-State, who filed the application for assisting
the State submit that there is a likelihood of performing
marriage between the two and the same may be considered.
10. When the material i.e., medical evidence is available
before the Court, this Court cannot exercise the discretion in
favour of the petitioner considering the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
High Court Government Pleader. However, this Court can direct
the Trial Court to dispose of the case within a time bound period.
11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is rejected.
(ii) Learned counsel for both the parties are
directed to assist the Trial Court in disposal of
the case within a time bound period of three
months and the learned Trial Judge shall
record the evidence and dispose of the
matter within the stipulated period.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
