IN TI-IF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT I3ENCR AT DHARWAD DATED THIS TIlE 21 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PET1TON No.10157/2011 BETWEEN: Shri. Vishnu, S/o. Sangappa Maragale, Age: 22 years, 0cc: Shephered. Rio. Bavandaddi—Kohalli, Tq. Athani. Dist. Belgaum. . . . Petitioner (By Shri. K.itBagi, Advocate) AND: The State of Karnataka, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Circuit Bench, Dharwad— 580011. Athani Police Station. . . Respondent (By Shri. Anand Kumar Navalgimath, Government Pleader) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking that the petitioner be enlarged on bail in S.C.No.202/2010 (Athani P.S. Crime No.40/2010 and C.C.No.476i’2010) pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Belgaurn, for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. g This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 2. The complainant is one Vimal Sangappa Maragale. It is her allegation that on 15.03.2010, her husband was away to visit a temple away from the village. It is her allegation that at 02:00 p.m., when she had gone to her land to get sugarcane grass, the petitioner herein is said to have come from behind and caught hold of her and had suggested that they have sex. When she attempted to free herself, the petitioner forced himself on her and sexually assaulted her and had run away. The complainant had thereafter, complained to others of the incident and it was claimed that her saree was torn. her bangles were broken and she sustained a lacerated injury to her right hand. It was only on 18.03.2010, that a complaint was lodged before the Police and it further transpires that she had been examined by a Doctor on 10,05.2010, who did find some injuries on her right hand and referred certain samples taken from her sexual parts to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Forensic Science Laboratory has now submitted a report, which is filed along with a memo by the counsel f’or the petitioner, that there was no sign of sexual assault. The entire process is a mockery of the investigation process. The incident having occurred on 15.03.20 10, the compliant having been lodged on 18.03.2010, the medical examination having conducted on 10.05.2010 is totally inexplicable and illogical. Hence, on the face of it, it cannot he said that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. The Court below however, on the application by the petitioner has rejected the bail petition on the ground that, as per the medical report dated 2 1.03.2010, it was indicated that the petitioner was capable of having sex. Further, since the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, pertaining to the victim, was awaited. the petitioner was not entitled to bail. 1-lowever, the Court below has not taken note of the sequence of events. which as already stated, is an absurd investigation process. Accordingly. the petitioner has made out 4 a case for enlargement on bail the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions: 1) He shalt furnish a personal bond for a sum of ZiO,000/-, with a solvent surety for a like sum, to the satisfaction ofthe trial Court. 2) He shall make himself available to the investigation Officer - as and when required for the purposes of investigation. 3) He shall not leave the jurisdiction ofthe trial Court without seeking leave ofthat Court. 4) He shall not seek to induce or threaten the prosecution witnesses. 5) He shalt attend the trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail subject to the Court granting exemption for good and valid reason. Sd! JUDGE Rsh