IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA URCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITON No.10009/2011 BETWEEN: Raju Bharmappa Naik, Age: 21 years, 0cc: Driver, Rio. Jamanal, Tal. and Dist. Belgaum. . . . Petitioner (By Shri. G.L.I-Iuller for K.B.Naik, Advocate) AND: The State Represented by Additional S.P.P. Through P.S.I. Katakol P.S. . . .Respondent (By Shri. Vinayak S. Kulkarni, 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 Sessions Case No.207/2010 pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 343 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant who was said to be a minor at the time of the incident, was however engaged as a coolie and the petitioner herein was known to her, as he was a driver of a tractor and sometimes would work together. He had made passes at the complainant on several occasions and he was teasing her that he would marry her. On 10.04.2010, when the complainant and her brother were in the house, the petitioner had taken the complainant along with him with a promise that he would marry her and he had taken her to Honaga village. Where he is said to have forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. Her family in the meanwhile had noticed that she was missing and on the next day she was traced and taken home. Thereafier, the complaint was filed. The petitioner had then 3 been taken into custody on the basis ofthe said allegations. The petitioner had approached the Court below seeking enlargement on bail. The Court below relying on a school certificate issued by the Head Master of the Government Lower Primary School. Where the complainant had studied tq to fifth standard and that she was born in the year 1994. Therefore she was a minor on the date of the incident and further as the Forensic Science Laboratory report of forcible sexual intercourse, was as yet awaited, the Court held that the petitioner had not made out a case for enlargement on bail, as he was accused of abducting a minor and therefore, had rejected the bail application. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would now submit that the age ofthe complainant did not stand established by reference to a certificate issued by the Head Master of a Lower Primary School, when ft is possible that the date of birth is not correctly recorded. Further the allegation of forcible sexual intercourse is also not established. The Forensic Science Laboratory report has been furnished and ft indicates that there was no sign offorcible sexual intercourse on the girl. Therefore, g 4 the question of the petitioner having induced the complainant who was alleged to be a minor as on the date of the incident and that he had sexual intercourse with her, as alleged would be the subject matter of a full-fledge trial. Therefore, he would seek enlargement on bail of the petitioner. 4. The learned Government Pleader would raise objections to contend that there are 25 witnesses, including the victim and her younger brother and others. Therefore, there is a prima facie case made out against the petitioner and the Court below having rejected the bail application, it does not warrant reconsideration. Notwithstanding that the Forensic Science Laboratory report does not categorically indicate that there was forcible sexual intercourse. 5. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the age of the complainant as well as the allegation of forcible sexual intercourse that the petitioner is said to have committed on the girl would remain the subject 5 matter of the trial. Accordingly. the petitioner has made out a case for enlargement on bail. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions: I) He shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of2O,OOO/-, 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 shall attend the trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail subject to the Court granting exemption for good and valid reason. Rsh RIDGE