Karnataka High CourtSri.Shashikant @ Pintu S/O Chidanand ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2020Author:Shivashankar AmarannavarBench:Shivashankar AmarannavarIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA\n                     DHARWAD BENCH\n\n         DATED THIS THE 5 t h DAY OF AUGUST 2020\n                           BEFORE\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR\n\n         CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100165 OF 2020\n\n   BETWEEN\n\n   SRI.SHASHIKANT @ PINTU\n   S/O CHIDANAND PUNDIPALLE\n   AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,\n   R/O: KOHALLI, TQ: ATHANI,\n   DIST: BELAGAVI.\n                                              ... PETITIONER\n   (BY SRI.S M MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE)\n\n   AND\n\n   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA\n   THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR\n   AIGALI POLICE STATION,\n   TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI,\n   REPRESENTED BY THE\n   STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,\n   HIGH COURT BUILDING,\n   HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,\n   AT: DHARWAD BENCH.\n                                             ... RESPONDENT\n   (BY SRI.RAMESH B.CHIGARI, HCGP)\n\n         THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.,\n   PRAYING THAT THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 BE\n   ENLARGED ON REGULAR BAIL IN S.C.109/2020 (AIGALI\n   P.S.CRIME NO.136/2019) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VIII\n   ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI FOR THE\n   OFFENCNE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376, 342, 109 R/W\n   SECTION 34 OFIPC.\n                              2\n\n\n\n\n      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS\n\nDAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:\n\n\n                         ORDERThis petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1\n\nunderSection 439of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime\n\nNo.136/2019 of Aigali Police Station registered for the\n\noffence punishable underSections 376,342and109of IPC\n\nread withSection 34of IPC pending on the file VIII Addl.\n\nDistrict and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in S.C. No.109/2020.2.    The case of the prosecution is that the complainant\n\nis a victim girl and she has lodged complaint and it is\n\nalleged in the complaint that she was residing with her\n\nmother Smt. Lakshmi and younger brothers. About eight\n\nyears back she had under went surgery for the gland\n\ngrown on the back of the head. About five months back\n\nthe petitioner-accused No.1 alleged to have met the\n\nmother of the complainant obtained signatures on some\n\ndocuments by saying that the certificates will be issued for\n\nthe physically handicapped persons.     Thereafter he was3making phone calls to her mother asking her to furnish\n\nphotographs and pass book of the Bank.     However, her\n\nmother objected for it and told him not to make any phone\n\ncalls.3.       It is further alleged in the complaint that on\n\n14.11.2019 her mother and younger brother Appasaheb\n\nwent to the coolie work in the morning. Another younger\n\nbrother Sangamesh who had a separate room for his study\n\npurpose went there. Thereafter, at about 10.30 a.m. the\n\npetitioner-accused No.1 came in front of her house and\n\nasked her to come to the house of Hussain @ Annappa\n\nMohammad Honavad on the ground that she had to sign.\n\nTherefore at about 11 a.m. she went to the house of\n\nHussain @ Annappa Mohammad Honavad.         At that time\n\nthe petitioner asked her to come inside the house to sign\n\nthe document. Thereafter she was taken inside the house\n\nand shown some of the papers kept on the cot. Therefore\n\nwhen she went with an intention to sign the documents he\n\nbolted the door and started molesting her. He closed her4mouth with duppatta and committed the rape by felling her\n\non the ground. In the meanwhile, the public in the near by\n\nhouse came and started knocking the door.       On hearing\n\nthe same and voices of the public he wok up. At that time\n\nsome people came from the other door by video graphing\n\nthe incident with their mobile and caught hold him.\n\nTherefore in a hurry the complainant wore her cloths and\n\nwent to the house and intimated the same with her mother\n\nand relatives. Therefore, after discussing the matter she\n\nlodged a complaint at about 8.15 p.m.    The case has been\n\nregistered in Crime No.136/2019 of Aigali Police Station for\n\nthe offence punishable underSections 376,342,109r/wSection 34of IPC. On 15.11.2019 petitioner-accused No.1\n\ncame to be arrested at 12.30 p.m. The petitioner filed the\n\nbail petition and 8th Addl. District and Sessions Judge,\n\nBelagavi   has   rejected   the   same   by   order   dated\n\n20.12.2019. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court\n\nseeking bail.54.    Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused\n\nNo.1 and learned HCGP for respondent-State. Perused the\n\nrecords.5.    Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1\n\nargued that though the alleged incident has taken place at\n\n11 a.m on 14.11.2019, the complaint came to be filed in\n\nthe evening at 8.15 p.m. and there is a delay in filing the\n\ncomplaint which goes to show that the petitioner-accused\n\nNo.1 has been falsely implicated.          It is his further\n\nsubmission that there are no injuries on the victim and\n\nalso on the petitioner-accused No.1.        It is his further\n\nsubmission that RFSL report reveals that no seminal stains\n\non the cloths seized which were belonging to the victim girl\n\nand the doctor has opined based on the said RFSL report\n\nthat seminal stains are not detected on the article Nos.1\n\nto 7 of the alleged victim.   It is his further submission that\n\nthe petitioner-accused No.1 is a News Reporter and he is\n\nalso an R.T.I. activist and he has filed applications before\n\nPDO and other Government Officials seeking information6and he was threatened by Government Officials and Aigali\n\nPolice to withdraw the said applications otherwise a false\n\ncase of rape will be foisted against him and to strengthen\n\nthe said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner-\n\naccused No.1 has produced the office copies of applications\n\nand representations given by the petitioner-accused No.1\n\nand also the copy of Udayavani News Paper dated\n\n06.10.2018.    It is his further submission that petitioner-\n\naccused     No.1   is   innocent       and   he   has   been   falsely\n\nimplicated in the case and prays to allow the petition.6.    Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted that there\n\nare   eye   witnesses     to   the     incident   and the      offence\n\ncommitted by the petitioner-accused No.1 is heinous\n\noffence of rape.        Eye witnesses have given statement\n\nbefore the Magistrate underSection 164of Cr.P.C.               It is\n\nhis further submission that if petitioner-accused No.1\n\ngranted with bail, he will tamper the prosecution witness\n\nand flee from justice. With this he prays to reject the bail\n\npetition.77.      Having regard to the submission made by the\n\nlearned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 and the\n\nlearned HCGP, this Court has gone through the charge\n\nsheet    records.     Even   according   to   the   complaint\n\naverments, some persons have made videograph of the\n\nincident.   But the charge sheet material does not find\n\nseizure of the said mobile phone containing the video\n\ngraph of the incident. The medical examination report of\n\nthe victim girl reveals that she has no injuries.        The\n\nMedical examination of accused also reveal that he has no\n\ninjuries and there are no seminal stains even though he\n\ncaught red hand on the spot.       Article Nos.1 to 7 which\n\nbelong to victim girl which were seized and sent to RFSL\n\nfor examination. RFSL in it's report dated 26.02.2020 has\n\nopined that there are no seminal stains in article Nos. 1 to7. On the basis of this RFSL report, doctor who examined\n\nthe victim girl has given his opinion that there are no\n\nseminal stains detected in article Nos.1 to 7 of alleged\n\nvictim of rape.     The petitioner has produced some office\n\ncopies of the representation given by him to the public8servants seeking information underRTI Actand also the\n\ncomplaint to Police Complaint Authority.        In the said\n\ncomplaint to Police Complaint Authority dated 17.10.2018,\n\nthere is a mention that PSI Aigali Police Station has\n\nthreatened the petitioner-accused No.1 that if he insist for\n\nfurnishing information underRTI Act, a false case of rape\n\nwill be foisted against him.       A copy of Udayavani news\n\npaper dated 06.10.2018 containing news items wherein it\n\nis mentioned that the petitioner and another were given\n\nlife threat for information sought by them. On looking to\n\nthe medical certificate of the victim and petitioner-accused\n\nNo.1 and the said documents produced by the petitioner-\n\naccused No.1 goes to show that there is strength in the\n\ncontention of the petitioner-accused No.1 that a false case\n\nhas been registered against him.8.    It is well settled that matters to be considered in an\n\napplication for bail are:"(i)   Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable\n      ground to believe that the accused had committed9the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge;(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of\n     conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or\n     fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour,\n     means, position and standing of the accused; (vi)\n     likelihood   of   the   offence   being   repeated;   (vii)\n     reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being\n     tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of\n     justice being thwarted by grant of bail. While a\n     vague allegation that the accused may tamper with\n     the evidence or witnesses, may not be a ground to\n     refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that\n     his mere presence at large would intimidate the\n     witnesses or if there is material to show that he will\n     use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the\n     evidence, then bail will be refused."9.   In a decision reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 in the case\n\nof DATARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARA PRADESH AND\n\nANOTHER, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:"A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is\n     the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that\n     a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.\n     However, there are instances in our criminal law\n     where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused\n     with regard to some specific offences but that is10another matter and does not detract from the\n      fundamental postulate in respect of other offences.\n      Yet    another   important   facet   of   our   criminal\n      jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general\n      rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a\n      correction home (whichever expression one may\n      wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of\n      these basic principles appear to have been lost sight\n      of with the result that more and more persons are\n      being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does\n      not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to\n      our society."10.   In the present case the investigation is completed.\n\nNo grounds have been made out by the prosecution to\n\nshow that custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused\n\nNo.1 is necessary. The petitioner-accused No.1 is residing\n\nin the address shown in cause title and the same is not\n\ndisputed. The main objection of the prosecution is that in\n\nthe event of grant of bail, the accused No.1 is likely to\n\ncause threat to the complainant and other prosecution\n\nwitnesses.    The said objection may be set right by\n\nimposing some stringent conditions.1111. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court\n\nis of the considered view that there are valid grounds for\n\ngrant bail subject to conditions. Hence, I pass the\n\nfollowing.ORDER\n\n      The petition filed underSection 439of Cr.P.C. is\n\nallowed.The petitioner/accused No.1 shall be released on bail\n\nin   Crime     No.136/2019         of    Aigali     P.S.,     pending     in\n\nS.C.No.109/2020 on the file of VIII Addl. District and\n\nSessions      Judge,    Belagavi,       subject     to      the   following\n\nconditions.i)       The petitioner shall execute a personal\n              bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh\n              rupees only) with one surety for the like sum\n              to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.In    view     of   the    Covid-2019          petitioner   is\n              permitted to furnish surety within two months.ii)      The   petitioner     shall     not     indulge     or\n              tamper prosecution witnesses in any manner.12iii)   The   petitioner   shall     not     leave     the\n      jurisdiction of the Sessions Court without prior\n      permission till disposal of the case.iv)    The petitioner shall mark his attendance\n      before    concerned    Police     Station   on      every\n      Second Sunday between 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. till\n      disposal of the case registered against him.Sd/-JUDGE\n\nHmb