Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Kar) 1164

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT KALABURAGI
P.N. Desai, J.
Sudeep @ Prajwal - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 200642/2022
Decided On : 28-07-2022

Advocates appeared:
Shri. R.V. Bhavikatti & Shri. Sangolli Naganna, Advs, for the Petitioner; Shri. Veeranagouda Malipatil, HCGP, for the Respondent

Bail is a rule and rejection is an exception, and the court must consider various factors, including the nature of the offense and the character of the accused, when deciding on bail applications.

Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Procedure - Sections 363, 342, 506 and 376 of IPC - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS]
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner is seeking bail in a case involving allegations of forcibly taking the victim, who is a relative, and subjecting her to sexual intercourse against her will. The petitioner argues that the case is false and motivated by revenge, while the prosecution contends that the petitioner committed the alleged offenses.
Finding of the Court:

The court considered the evidence, including the FIR, police report, and statements, and found that the petitioner is entitled to bail based on the nature of the offenses, character of the accused, and other relevant considerations.
Issues: The issues revolve around the credibility of the allegations, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the petitioner's entitlement to bail in light of the seriousness of the offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that bail is a rule and rejection is an exception, and considered factors such as the nature and seriousness of the offense, character of the accused, and reasonable probabilities of the accused's presence at trial.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner, imposing specific conditions to address the prosecution's apprehensions.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short), seeking to enlarge the petitioner, who is arraigned as accused, on bail in Crime No.4/2022 of Kudagi Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 342, 506 and 376 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Basavan Bagewadi.

02. It is the case of the prosecution that a complaint came to be filed by victim alleging that the petitioner was known to her and her family members. The petitioner has developed intimacy with the victim and taking undue advantage of intimacy, he called the victim over phone on 05.12.2021 at 02.30 p.m. to come near Muttagi cross and taken her forcibly on his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-28-K-8040 to Muddebihal. The petitioner has threatened to take her life. The petitioner stayed with victim in the house of his relatives and forcibly subjected the victim to sexual intercourse. In this regard, a complaint came to be filed on 10.01.2022. Thereafter, the jurisdictional police has transferred the FIR to the jurisdictional police, which came to be registered in Crime No.4/2022 on 19.01.2022. The petitioner was arrested on 21.01.2022. His bail petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. came to be dismissed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapura. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition.

03. Heard Sri. R. V. Bhavikatti, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that a false case has been filed against the petitioner. The petitioner and the victim are the relatives. There is a earlier proposal to give in marriage the victim with the petitioner. In view of age difference, he refused to marry the victim. The victim is married and having child. Just to take revenge and extract the money from the petitioner, a false case has been filed against him. He further argued that there is delay in lodging the FIR. The allegation that the victim was taken on motorcycle in day abroad light about 60 kms, cannot be believed at all. In the charge sheet accused Nos.2 to 4 have been dropped. The petitioner is younger than the complainant. Since, 21.01.2022 the petitioner was in judicial custody. The petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to offer surety. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

05. Against this, learned High Court Government Pleader argued that the offences are heinous in nature. The petitioner forcibly took the victim and subjected her to sexual intercourse against her will and wish. In such type of case, naturally there is no need to lodge complaint immediately after occurrence of incident. The police have already filed the charge sheet. The material placed before the Court shows that the petitioner had committed offences as alleged against them. Hence, he prays to reject the petition.

06. I have perused the FIR, police report and the statement. It is evident that the petitioner and the victim are the relatives. It is also evident that the petitioner used to come to victim's house and used to talk over phone. It is also evident that the victim went to Muttagi village on 02.12.2021 along with her uncle for Jatra festival. It is alleged that the petitioner called victim to come to Muttagi cross on 05.12.2021. She herself voluntarily went to Muttagi cross. According to the petitioner it is stated that the distance between Muttagi cross to Muddebihal is about 60 kms. Victim stated in complaint that the petitioner took her forcibly on his motorcycle for such long distance in broad day light, which requires some believable evidence. There is no medical evidence with regard to recent sexual intercourse as per the medical report. Offcourse, there is a delay in examination of the victim. There is also no such physical marks, so as t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document