IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF APRIL, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNATHAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10418/2011 BETWEEN: Kiran, S/o. Mallappa Avinal Age: 21 years, 0cc: Private Service R/o. Near Karemma Temple Virapur Oni, Hubli PETITIONER (By Sri. R. H. Angadi & H. S. Nayak, Advs.) AND: The State of Karnataka By Gadag Town Police Represented by SPP High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench. Dharwad. RESPONDENT (By Sri. Vinavak S. Kulkarni, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH GADAG P.S. CRIME NO.103/2010 (IN C.C.NO.529/2010 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC. GADAG) WHICH IS CHARGE SHEETED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 366 AND 376 OF IPC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard the petitioner’s Counsel and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State in respect of the bail sought by the petitioner, who is accused of having committed the offences punishable under Section 366 and 376 of the IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that, the complaint was lodged by one Gurupadavva Salimath said to be the elder brother of the father of the girl in question. According to the said complaint, on 15.07.2010, the girl in question who is the prosecutrix wanted to go to Hubli and she went along with complainant’s son Avinash and boarded the bus at 11.00 am and the complainant was told by his son that in the bus, the prosecutrix was seen talking to the petitioner. Thereafterwards, the girl did not return home and suspecting that the girl was kidnapped by the accused, complaint was lodged on 05.08.2010. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, referring to the complaint submitted that the complaint was lodged after 19 days of the prosecutrix going in the bus with the petitioner. Secondly, the statement of one Gurang Bhargav Kumar recorded on 20.08.20 10 indicates that the girl in question married the petitioner and they went to the house of said Gurang Bhargav Kumar and sought for help and accordingly, the petitioner was given a job and the couple lived in rented house. Thereafterwards, the parents came and took away the prosecutrix. 4. Referring to the above statement of Gurang Bhargav Kumar, submission made is that, the victim also was more then 17 years and she informed the complainant that she was staying with the petitioner in 4 the place of Gurang Bhargav Kumar (CW12) and therefore, the likelihood of offence of rape committed by the petitioner does not arise. As far as the petition now being filed second time is concerned, the made is that the earlier bail petition was filed before filing of the charge sheet and more over the Court had insisted on the production of the marriage documents. Now after the charge sheet is filed, the statement of CW12 reveals that there was no offence of rape being committed by the petitioner and therefore, in view of the changed circumstances, the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader is that, this Court had refused to grant bail earlier and therefore, question of granting bail does not arise. Apart from that, the petitioner has committed the alleged offences and statement made by the prosecutrix before the jurisdictional magistrate also shows that the girl was taken forcibly by the petitioner and she was minor, born on 11.01.1994. As such, the petition be rejected. 6. Having thus heard both sides, after going through the material placed and in view of the statement being made that this petition is being filed subsequent to filing of the charge sheet under changed circumstances and the petitioner’s Counsel referring to the statement of CW12, having gone through the said statement and taking note of the age of the girl and no effort being made by the complainant to find out the whereabouts of the prosecutrix for nearly 19 days and taking all these factors in to account and also the conduct of the prosecutrix as she did not make any effort to escape from the place of CW12, wherein she was staying with the petitioner, the ruling referred to by the petitioner’s Counsel reported in AIR 2003 SC 2081 in the case of Jinish Lcil Sha Vs. State of Bihar also 6 having’ bearing on this petition, in view of the subsequent events following the girl having travelled in the bus to Hubli and thereafterwards as per statement of CW2, she having said to have married the petitioner, living with him for quite some time, taking all these factors into account, I am of the view that the petitioner can be released on bail by imposing conditions. Hence I pass the following order: ORDER The petition is allowed subject to the following conditions: I. The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. 2. He shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not give threat to the witnesses in any manner. 3. He shall mark attendance before the jurisdictional police station on 15th and 7 3Qth of every month between 10.00 a.m and 5.00 p.m. 4. He shall not leave the district without permission in writing of the jurisdictional Magistrate. 5. If any of the bail conditions are violated, bail will be cancelled at the request of the prosecution. Sd/ JUDGE gab/