IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17 TF1 DAY OF JANUARY 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10032/2011 BETWEEN: Laxrnan Mahadevappa Kamannavar, Age 21 years, 0cc: Student. R/o Katakol. Tq: Ramdurg, Dist: Belgaum. Petitioner (By Shri R. K. Kulkarni, Advocate) AND: The State of Karnataka, Represented by SPP, Jamakhandi P.S. Circuit Bench, Dharwad. Respondent (By Shri Vinayak S. Kulkarni, GP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.167/10 in Jamkhandi Town Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 292, 376, 448. 506, 509 and 51 1 of Indian Penal Code, and etc. This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Government Advocate seeks time to obtain instructions. However, it is noticed that the matter was listed on earlier occasions and inspite of sufficient time having been granted, the Government Pleader is unable to obtain instructions. 2. The brief facts are as follows: That one Spoorti Girimallannavar had lodged a complaint on 13.12.2009, against the petitioner herein to state that she is residing with her widowed mother at Katakol village, wherein her mother is working as a Second Division Assistant in the local Government High School and that the complainant was a 3 college student. Immediately behind their house, the petitioner and his younger sister were residing. The younger sister of the petitioner and the complainant were classmates and therefore, she was acquainted with them. The petitioner and his sister used to visit the house of the complainant on and off. Taking advantage of the acquaintance, it is alleged, that once while the complainant was bathing, the petitioner had stealthily entered the house and sought to sexually assault her. The complainant with great difficulty prevented him and thereafter, had intimated her mother. On hearing this, her mother sent the complainant away to her elder sister’s house at Jamakhandi where she was living for the past six months. The petitioner did not allow the complainant to live in peace and constantly tried to contact her and threatened her, that she would face dire consequences if she did not return and he also threatened that he would publish nude pictures of the complainant to spoil her image, if she did not return. He was also threatening her mother of such dire consequences and the mother. The further S. 4 S allegation is that the petitioner had threatened the brother-in- law of the complainant as well, of dire consequences. It is further alleged, that on 9.12.2010 at 12 noon when the complainant was alone at home, the accused had entered the house and bolted the door from inside and attempted to commit rape on the complainant, by which time the brother-in-law of the complainant had knocked on the door and that had prevented the petitioner from completing his illegal act and he had run away from the house, which was noticed by the brother-in-law. It was thereafter that the complaint is said to have been lodged, which was registered in Crime No.167/2010 for offences punishable under Sections 292,448, 376, 511, 506 and 509 ofThe Indian Penal Code. 3. It is in this background, that the petitioner had approached the learned Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, seeking bail. The trial Court has rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner is likely to repeat his conduct. S 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the very allegations in the complaint would not make out a case for offences punishable under Sections 376 or 511 of the Indian Penal Code. When that is so, the other sections which are quoted are in respect of bailable otlences and therefore, in the absence of any prima facie case being made out as against the petitioner, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Mere suspicion that he is capable of committing any such acts punishable with imprisonment for life or otherwise, by itself does not disentitle him from seeking bail as a matter of right in respect of bailable offence. The learned Counsel would therefore, submit that the court below has misconstrued the facts and circumstances in holding that a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner disentitling him for bail. 5. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would seek to justify the order of the court below. 6 6. A plain reading of the complaint and the circumstances narrated herein above, do not deems unimpeachable, especially in respect of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 511 of The Indian Penal Code. There are no overt acts which prima facie would indicate that the petitioner has committed rape. Even the allegations regarding attempts to commit rape are not convincingly made out by a plain reading ofthe complaint Hence, the allegations are only in respect of offences which are bailable and the petitioner has made out a case for enlargement on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25000/- with one solvent surety for a like sum. 2. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction ofthe Court without leave ofthe Court. 4 7 ‘A 3. The petitioner shall report before the jurisdictional police of Katakol every alternative day between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. to report his presence in Katakol. 4. The petitioner shall not seek to threaten or influence the prosecution witnesses or the complainant at any point oftime 1 5. The petitioner shall attend the trial on every date of hearing except if exempted from such appearance for good and valid reason. With the above conditions, the petition is allowed. JUDGE Sub!