Karnataka High Court
Animesh Biswas vs State Of Karnataka on 7 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19791
CRL.P No. 3290 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3290 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
ANIMESH BISWAS,
S/O BISHNUCHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT: APMC MARKET,
HUSKURU MAIN ROAD,
MAKALI VILLAGE, NELAMANGALA,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 162.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHASHIKANTH.R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY,
Digitally signed by REP BY SPP HON'BLE HIGH COURT BUILDING,
MAYAGAIAH BENGALURU - 560 001.
VINUTHA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. VICTIM / GUARDIAN
KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY FATHER,
AS A NATURAL GUARDIAN,
SRI. LAKSHMIPATHI P.C.
S/O LATE P.M. CHALAPATHI,
#317, SHASHANKA IKYA APARTMENT,
AMBABHAVANI TEMPLE ROAD,
SHYAMARAJAPURA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU-97.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI.K, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. SHILPA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19791
CRL.P No. 3290 of 2024
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.136/2023 OF
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE
OFFENCE P/US/ 376(2)(n),376(3) OF IPC AND SEC.5(L),6,8 OF
POCSO ACT AND SEC.67(B) OF IT ACT 2000 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
(FTSC IV) BENGALURU CITY IN SPL.C.NO.1640/2023.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking
grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime
No.136/2023 of Yelahanka New Town Police Station, on the file
of the learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (F.T.S.C-
IV), Bengaluru City, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376 (3) of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short 'IPC'), sections 5(1), 6 and 8 of the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO
Act') and Section 67(B) of the Information Technology Act,
2000 (for short 'IT Act'), on the basis of the first information
lodged by the informant viz., Kumari Keerthana L.N.
2. Heard Sri.Shashikanth.R., learned counsel for the
petitioner, Smt.Shilpa Prasad, learned counsel for respondent
No.2 and Sri.Rahul Rai.K., learned High Court Government
NC: 2024:KHC:19791
Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on
record.
3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise
for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled
for grant of bail under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C.?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the
following:
REASONS
4. The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this court
seeking grant of bail. He is said to have committed the offences
as stated above. He was apprehended on 03.05.2023 since
then he is in judicial custody. The father of the victim girl aged
about 16 years filed the first information against accused Nos.1
and 2 making specific allegations. It is stated that the
informant and her foster father are staying in an apartment.
Accused No.2 is the security guard working there and he
induced the victim girl and committed sexual harassment.
Accused No.1 i.e., petitioner is a plumber by profession and
NC: 2024:KHC:19791
visited the apartment. He also induced the victim girl and by
taking advantage of her innocence, kidnapped her and
committed penetrative sexual assault repeatedly. He took the
photos and the videos of the victim and started blackmailing
the victim. The investigation is completed and charge sheet is
filed. As per the medical reports, the hymen of the victim was
found ruptured and it was found that she was subjected to
sexual assault.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that there is delay in lodging the first information and
the informant had consultation with the police before filing the
same, cannot be a ground to discard the first information as
embezzled one as there is no such material available before
this Court to state that the informant had improved his version
by gaining time. on the other hand, it is the contention of the
informant that even though she went to the police station for
lodging the first information, the Investigating Officer asked her
to come on the next day by getting the information written in
Kannada and accordingly, she went to the police station on the
next date. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is
embezzlement in the information provided by the informant.
NC: 2024:KHC:19791
6. The second contention raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the date of birth of the victim
is not proved by the prosecution. The charge sheet produced
before the Court discloses that the prosecution is relying on the
copy of admission registrar extract issued by Presidency School
where the victim had studied from Grade-I to Grade-III. The
prosecution has also produced the Transfer Certificate of the
victim and according to both these documents, the date of birth
is 30.12.2007. Therefore, prima facie, the victim was aged
about 16 years at the time of incident. It is pertinent to note
that the victim was examined as PW.1 and her foster father as
PW.2. Both these witnesses have totally supported the case of
prosecution.
7. The contention of the learned counsel that there are
contradictions or omissions or even improvement in the
evidence of the witnesses cannot be appreciated at this stage
as it is for the trial Court to appreciate and weigh the evidence
after full fledged trial. Suffice for this Court to say that prima
facie the victim has withstood her cross-examination so also
her father PW.2.
NC: 2024:KHC:19791
8. The third contention raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that accused No.2 has already been
enlarged on bail and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to
be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. The allegations
made against accused Nos.1 and 2 are entirely different. As I
have already stated, the allegation against accused No.2 is that
he being the security guard in the apartment where the victim
was residing sexually harassed her by improperly touching the
parts of the body. But the allegation against the present
petitioner is that he being the plumber, visited the apartment,
induced the victim girl, took her to a place and committed
penetrative sexual assault repeatedly, taken photos and video
and started blackmailing her. He used to call her repeatedly
and used to collect obscene photos of the victim. The allegation
made against the petitioner is of very serious nature and there
are sufficient materials available to prima facie establish the
same. The trial in the matter has already begun. It is stated
that four or five witnesses are already examined. When the
victim and the informant have supported the case of
prosecution, there are no reasons to disbelieve the story of the
prosecution. As I have already stated the victim was aged
about 16 years at the time of incident, whereas the petitioner is
NC: 2024:KHC:19791
24 years of age. Looking to the nature and seriousness of the
offences, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled
for grant of bail.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner places a bunch of
five decisions in support of his contention but, he could not
draw the attention of the Court to any particularly portion of
the judgments for seeking bail of the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VM
