In the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015 BEFORE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY CRL.P NO.5136 OF 2015 BETWEEN 1. SHANKARA C, S/O. LATE CHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O ADARANGI, KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-570 108. 2. RAVI KIR AN @ KIRAN, S/O. THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O. RANGAIAHANAPALYA, KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-570 109. ... PETITIONERS (By SRI. A. N. RADHA KRISHNA, ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KUDUR POLICE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENT (By SRI. NAZARULLA KHAN, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS 2 HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETRS. ON BAIL IN CR. NO.110/2015 OF KADDUR P.S., RAMANAGARA, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323,363 AND 376D R/W 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R Case was registered for offence punishable under Sec. 376 of IPC in Crime No.110/2015 by Kudur Police. These petitioners are accused No.1 and 2. 2. The complaint initially was made on 29-03-2015, for which the villagers also were signatories. In the said complaint, the complainant Mubashir Banu stated that one Shankar and another Venkatesh committed the offence of rape. On 28-03-2015 at 8.00 ‘O’ clock, when she came out of the house, the petitioner - accused forcibly dragged the complainant to Kodi Kaluve of Rangaiahpalya village and tried to outrage her modesty. At that time she escaped and ran to Rangaiahpalya village, where the villagers protected her and brought her back to her village. Thereafter, further a second complaint of the 3 complainant was recorded on 29-03-2015 at Magadi Government Hospital, where she reiterated the contents of the first statement which was made by her and signed by the villagers. The name of the second accused – Ravi Kiran was not mentioned in the first and second complaints. However for the first time, the name of Ravi Kiran appeared in the statement of the complainant made on 30-03-2015. It is her statement that she was knowing Shankar, but she was not knowing the name of the other person and she gave his name as Venkatesh and later she learnt that the name of the other person was Ravi Kiran. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this inconsistent statement of the complainant has to be taken into consideration for granting bail to these petitioners since they are innocents and falsely implicated in the case. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent made available the investigation papers. From the investigation papers, it is seen that in the first 4 complaint, she has stated that after hearing her cries the villagers came and rescued her and she went to the Police Station along with the villagers and lodged complaint, in which she mentioned the names of Shankar and Venkatesh and later mentioned the name of Ravi Kiram instead of Venkatesh. 5. The case of the prosecution is fortified by the medical report which strengthens the case of the prosecution, wherein the medical examination is positive, namely that these accused persons had committed the offence. The three statements of the complainant are recorded, though with minor variation. Be that as it may, since investigation is already completed and charge sheet is filed, these persons are not required for further investigation. However, the offence committed is against the victim and also against the society and State and if the accused are convicted for the offence, punishable would be up to 10 years. The complainant is from the village Adrangi, whereas 5 the accused persons are from Sirigiripura village. Under these circumstances, I deem it fit to grant bail. 6. Accordingly, the petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioners are granted bail subject to the following conditions: 1) Petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court; 2) They shall mark attendance on the second Sunday of every month in the jurisdictional Police Station between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. for a period of six months from the date of their release; 3) They shall not hold out threat to the prosecution witness or tamper with evidence; 4) They shall attend the court on all dates of hearing, except under unavoidable circumstances; 5) If they violate any of the above conditions, prosecution will be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. SD/SD/---- JUDGE Mgn* .

Load more