Karnataka High Court
Ramanaiah S/O. Muniswamy Hiremath vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6019
CRL.P No. 100866 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100866 OF 2024 (439)
BETWEEN:
1. RAMANAIAH S/O MUNISWAMY HIREMATH,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DURGADEVI NAGAR, MUNDARAGI-582118,
TQ: MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG.
2. PALLAVI W/O RAMANAIAH HIREMATH,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. DURGADEVI NAGAR, MUNDARAGI-582118,
TQ: MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG.
3. PRABHU S/O RAMANAIAH HIREMATH,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. DURGADEVI NAGAR, MUNDARAGI-582118,
TQ: MUNDARAGI,DIST: GADAG.
(IN FIR WRONGLY SHOWN IN RAMANAYYA)
- PETITIONERS
Digitally signed (BY SRI CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)
by SAROJA
HANGARAKI
AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
BENCH THE POLICE INSPECTOR, GANGAVATHI TOWN P.S.
DHARWAD REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
2. GOURI D/O ASHOKAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. J.C. BADAVANE,
4TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, HARIHAR-577601,
DIST: DAVANAGERE.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SANTOSH RAWOOT, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6019
CRL.P No. 100866 of 2024
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS. 4 TO 6 IN
CRIME NO. 12/2024 OF GANGAVATHI POLICE STATION PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I,
KOPPAL REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 376,
376D, 376(2)(n), 506 OF IPC AND SEC. 4, 6, 8 AND 17 PROTECTION
OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner/accused Nos.4 to 6 filed the present
petition U/s 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection
with the case registered in Gangavathi P.S. Crime No.
12/2024.
2. Parties to the petition are referred with their ranks as
assigned in the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. Heard the arguments of both sides.
4. After hearing the arguments of both sides and on
perusal of the charge sheet materials produced by the
learned High Court Government Pleader, the following
points arise for consideration.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6019
(1) Whether the petitioner/accused No.4 to 6 are
entitled for grant of regular bail in terms of Sec.
439 of Cr.P.C.?
(2) What order?
5. On the strength of complaint filed by the victim, criminal
law was set into motion by registering the case in Gangavathi
P.S. Crime No. 12/2024 for the offences punishable U/s 376,
376(D), 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC and Sections 4, 6, 8 and 17 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act' for brevity). The
complaint allegations are to the effect that the date of birth of
victim is 06.10.2004. Accused No.1 during the year 2021
introduced himself as social worker. While she was staying in a
rented house along with her mother and sister, he developed
contact with the family members. Accused No.1 was owning a
car bearing registration No.KA-25-MB-0230 and on the board it
was displayed as Member of Taluka Panchayat. Accused No.2
was introduced as his P.A. It is further alleged that accused
No.1 introduced himself as the uncle of victim in the hostel
where she was residing and taken her to the room already
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6019
booked in Presidency Tourist Home and told that her father will
come within 10 minutes. Accused No.1 has offered the juice
and victim after consuming the same fell unconscious.
Thereafter both accused No.1 and 2 had committed sexual
assault on her and video-graphed the incident of sexual
assault. On regaining conscious, both accused No.1 and 2
showed the videographs to victim and threatened the victim
not to disclose about the incident to anybody. On 01.10.2021,
again accused No.1 took the victim and thereafter on different
dates to the very same lodge, further by administering threat
on showing the video graphs, committed penetrative sexual
assault on her. Accused No.3-brother of accused No.1 who was
tenant in a room situated on the house of her grandmother
called the victim to the room and under threat of disclosing her
secret inappropriately, touched her chest and private part and
attempted to commit sexual assault on her. However, she
escaped from him.
5(a). Accused No.4-Father, Accused No.5-Mother, Accused
No.6-Brother and Accused No.7-Sister of Accused No.1 have
abated the commission of sexual assault of accused No.1
against victim and on one occasion accused No.4
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6019
inappropriately touched on her chest. On account of the
harassment of family members of accused No.1, sold the house
and shifted to Harihara. Accused No.1 taking undue advantage
of there being no member in the family of victim also
committed sexual assault on sister of the victim and she has
given up her studies in Mundaragi and shifted to Harihara. It is
further alleged in complaint that the accused have committed
sexual assault on her and threatened to leak videograph of
victim involving sexual assault, accused No.1 and 2 have
committed repetitive penetrative sexual assault on her. On
these allegations made in the complaint, the case was
registered against all the accused named in the FIR and since
then accused No.1 to 7 are in judicial custody.
6. The learned HCGP has filed objections opposing the bail
application of the petitioners contending that there are
sufficient prima facie material evidence against accused and
they have exploited helpless situation of victim and her family
members, further accused No.1 and 2 by exploiting victim
committed penetrative sexual assault on her. Therefore, if the
accused are released on bail, they may harass and threaten the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6019
victim not to speak against them. Therefore, prayed for
rejection of the bail application.
7. The counsel for respondent No.2 has not filed objections,
but however objected for grant of bail in view there being
sufficient material evidence against them.
8. Learned HCGP has filed copy of the charge sheet. The
investigating officer having completed investigation, filed
charge sheet. The complaint allegations and the charge sheet
materials would go to show that the allegation of repeated
penetrative sexual assault on the victim is against accused No.1
and 2. The victim according to the complaint allegations, her
date of birth is stated to be 06.10.2004. The Admission
Register of Shri. Vidyaniketan PU College, Gangavathi would go
to show that the date of birth of victim is recorded as
06.10.2004. As on the date of first incident 19.05.2021 the
victim was 16 years 07 months 13 days and below 18 years
and victim was a minor as on the date of first incident.
9. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is a
difference of one year 9 months 10 days between the first and
the last incident and there is also time gap of two years 4
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6019
months from the date of first incident to the date of filing the
complaint. Further there is gap of one year 5 months from the
last incident till the date of filing the complaint. Therefore,
concoction of facts against these petitioners to involve them in
this case cannot be ruled out.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of such
contention placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex in
State of Andhra Pradesh V/s M. Madhusudhan rao
reported in (2008) 15 SCC 582 wherein it has been observed
and held in para No.30 as under:
"Time and again, the object and importance
of prompt lodging of the first information
report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging
the first information report, more often than
not, results in embellishment and
exaggeration, which is a creature of an
afterthought. A delayed report not only gets
berefit of the advantage of spontaneity, the
danger of the introduction of a coloured
version, an exaggerated account of the
incident or a concocted story as a result of
deliberations and consultations, also creeps
in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity.
Therefore, it is essential that the delay in
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6019
lodging the report should be satisfactorily
explained"
If the aforementioned facts are considered from the date of
first incident on 19.05.2021 till the date of filing complaint are
appreciated with reference to the above mentioned Hon'ble
Apex Court judgment, then at least against accused No.4 to 6 it
would go to show that there are no allegations against them till
the date of filing complaint.
11. The allegation of they having committed abatement for
accused No.1 and 2 in committing the sexual assault is made
only at the time of filing the complaint. If the narration of
incident as stated in the complaint is taken into consideration,
then it would go to show that the victim has suffered incidents
of sexual assault on her at different dates and different places,
but not made any such similar allegations of having committed
abatement by accused No.4 to 6 in committing sexual assault
on victim by accused No.4 to 6. Therefore, at this stage, it can
be only inferred that other than mere referring their names as
abettors for accused No.1 and 2 to commit sexual assault on
victim, there is no any evidence to prove the charge of
abatement. It is true that in the complaint allegations victim
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6019
made allegations against accused No.4 that on one occasion, he
pressed on her chest. The said statement of victim against
accused No.4 is to be corroborated by the other evidence on
record and same can be thrashed out only during trial of the
case. At present the main allegation of prosecution against
accused No.4 to 6 is that they have abated accused No.1 to 2
to commit penetrative sexual assault on victim. There are no
any such circumstances stated in the complaint, so as to draw
inference against accused No.4 to 6 at this stage that they have
abated accused No.1 and 2 for committing sexual assault on
the victim. Accused No.4 to 6 are the permanent resident of the
address given in the cause title, is not in serious dispute by the
prosecution. Investigation in this case has been already
completed and looking to the allegations made against them,
their further continuation in judicial custody is totally
unwarranted and they are entitled for grant of bail.
Consequently, proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioners/ accused No.4 to
6 filed U/s 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6019
Accused No.4 to 6 are ordered to be released on bail on
their executing personal bond and surety bond for
Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the trial Court subject to following conditions.
(1) Accused No.4 to 6 shall not leave the jurisdiction of
trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(2) Accused No.4 to 6 shall produce address proof
document of themselves and that of their surety
subject to police verification;
(3) Accused No.4 to 6 shall not tamper the prosecution
witness in any manner;
(4) Accused No.4 to 6 shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when called for the
purpose of investigation.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RKM
CT:GSM
