IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF MARCH, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNATHAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10252/2011 BETWEEN: Sri Sakhram SI Kallappa Pujari Age: 45 years, 0cc: Agriculture R/o. Jogul at present Ganeshwadi Parame shwarwadi Tal: Shirol & Dist: Koihapur PETITIONER (By Sri. Santosh B. Malagoudar, Adv.) AND: The State of Karnataka Through PSI, Kagwad Police Station Represented by its S P P SPP Office, Circuit Bench, Dharwad RESPONDENT (By Sri. Anand K. Navalgimath, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS DEEMED FIT IN KAGAWAD P.S. CRIME NO.01/2011 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 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 the State in respect of bail sought by the petitioner, against whom a case is registered for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC in Crime No. 1/2011 by the Kagwad Police Station. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that, the prosecutrix went to the land to bring the firewood and at about 2.00 pm, the accused was also in the land known to the victim and was asked by the victim to help her in lifting the firewood on to her head. At that time, the accused/petitioner said to have shown the sickle to her and get it on her neck and forcibly had intercourse with the victim and also threatened to kill her. The victim came home with the help of tier daughter and she later identified the accused/petitioner also by going to his house at Parmeshwarwadi. 3. The submission of the petitioner’s counsel is that the incident said to have taken place about 1 ‘/2 months prior to the lodging of the complaint and therefore, this delay of more than one month is fatal to the prosecution case and also the medical report indicate no signs of sexual intercourse and particularly, the petitioner belongs to some other village and the victim was not even knowing his name. Therefore, petitioner be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader referring to the objections filed, 4 submitted that the victim, though seen the accused as he was known to her, but she could not identif the name and only after going to the house of the accused, she was able to identify the name also and apart from that, as per the statement of the victim herself, the accused/petitioner has committed the alleged offence and therefore, grant of bail is not warranted. 5. Having thus heard both sides and after going through the complaint allegations and the age of the victim being 60 years, and she is also having grown up daughters, the medical evidence not indicating any signs of sexual intercourse cannot be very relevant at this juncture. As the statement of the victim reveals that she was subjected to forcible rape by the petitioner, grant of bail would lead to tampering of the evidence and witnesses being threatened as rightly mentioned in the objections by the State. 6. For the above reasons, petition is rejected. It is made clear that this order shall not in any xvav affect the case of the petitioner on merits at a later stage during the trial. The trial Court to take up the trial at the earliest. Sd! JUDGE gab/