Gururaj S/O Husenappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Gururaj S/O Husenappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2009
Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE 17" DAY OF SERTEMEER,__2OO9I~If   .

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.RI:""KU%MARASW'AMY 

CRIMINAL PETITIOH:_N'Q.91?2/2009'1  
BETWEEN:    

SRLGURURAJ, S/O HUSENAPPA, 
AGE 22 YEARS,   _ '
OCCUPATION:PRIVATE- .V I
SERvICE,R/O KARADKAL VILLAGE;
TALUKA-LINGASGUR,'-.__J    'T
DISTRICT,RAICH.U.R...'  - }_  .._:-PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VvEEVRE'Sj-I"E34;:PA'TI_L)I:"VC*' ~   
AND: I I

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, .--  I

THROUGH' P_.S.I.,"~LI_NGAlSGuR'*P.S.,

REPRESENTED BY SPRHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(ZIRCUI1~*.I.BEl'-ICH«AT GULDARGE. :RESPONDENT
(BY SR1' I'Sut3H.AIS'H A..W:LLAPU R, HCGP)

THIS CR.INH."xE}AL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C.

 PRAYING"TOENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME
~..'.f;NO;67/2OO9.VQF LINGASUGUR POLICE STATION ON THE FILE OF
, ,_CI\'/IL"JL:DGE'(3R. DN.), & JMFC, REGISTERED U/S.366A, 417 &
 i'O9~Q§?_I_P"C.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING UP FOR HEARING THIS

 A  D~AiY","THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.

6/



ORDER

This criminai petition is filed under S.439

praying to enlarge the petitioner on baii in Crime

Lingasiigur Police Station on the fiie of the Civil V’

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lingasltzguiiji~regis.tered

offences punishabie under Sections._3’6§(A)}’v-Q 7. “iPC. * L’

2. The case of the –‘

That the police have fai’seviyA,_im’piigated”ffi’ei__petitioner in this
case at the instigat’i’dn”an:d of the persons
inimically v’.:pet’i»tioner and his family
members. the material placed on
record do facie case against this
petitioner._That t’hel_:Valie.ged”. ilncildent has taken place at around
the arrack shop of Huligudda near

thelhoushelli.5¢.n0:’plainant.The ailegation is that though it is a

busyéjlareailfihelllcomplainant took the victim by force, cannot

~.l.l’.jb-ei_be.lieved[ the first instance, missing complaint was lodged

All¢lif.é:rii:’;0%0imu. on 07.04.2009. on 10.0S.2009,after recording the

of the victim, a case in Crime No.67/2009 was

9/

registered against the petitioner. There is delay in lodging the

complaint. The police have got written the complaint_pfro’ml_l’t.he

complainant to suit their purpose. The complainant'”‘aVn’d..i”:ita_e’,

victim belong to different communities._ The police”h:aye”‘alVr*eVadi/””

produced the petitioner before the Judicial i§(lag;istiiiate

Lingasugur and the daughter ‘ofV”‘-~t.he lconwplailniantj~-rand; theui”

petitioner have been subjected to_.__lrne_di’c.a’l eitaniinnagtilbn. The
other accused have beenby the learned
Sessions Judge, Raichur, Nos.24S/2009,
248/2009 and -4]; A M ‘A

3. Pleader has filed the
objections bail petition. It is alleged
that a sinjilar aplplicatiovn iii:-asiiled before the Court of Sessions
the””sa’Vme was dismissed vide order in Crl.

Misc… It is alleged that A~1 had forcible sexual

}””~”Vintercou»:.jse victim with the help of his friends i.e., A~2

A’«v1__A’1’had kidnapped the victim in Indica Car bearing

it’*–:xN’og§i{‘A4=i3_€{‘§’M–5233 by intimidating her and took her to a garden

“r.V%l’an.d’V__t§earing Sy. No.82/1 situated at Askihal Village and he

W

wrongfully confined her there with the help of accused i\i_os. 12

and 13. A–1 forcibly had sexual intercourse with her anjdlh_’e.gla–lvso

caused burn injuries with cigarette butt on her knee.’

4. I have heard the learned ‘forthe

well as the learned Government Pleaderw.appe,’a’r’l.ng °foij’.the”g

respondent — State.

5. I have perused”~~..i:he_*’lcooy;’Jar-…l:he ‘charge sheet
produced by the learned counsel’ The contents
of the FIR disclose;’~tl1a£t:y.’on theain-a’sis~off’-t’i’iie…cornplaint lodged by
one Smt. Rekha;ha}/eregistered a case in
Crime At the first instance, on
07.04.2009;v’z’–RVVei<ha SliVoalg~ed'4~.l.§r»»:n1issing complaint before the
i.ingasugur_ Policeistating 06.04.2009 at 9.30 a.m., her
déijglltti-fijhaciy'-il:ef'éitheilhousevto attend 10"' Standard examination

and"s.h'eA.d'i'd to the house. Thereafter, the victim was

jg'-~»i;raced her statement was recorded on the same

The statement of the victim discloses that she belongs to

éjfiingawyatyh.rcomhnunity. She was studying in 10*" Standard. One

. belonging to scheduied caste was teasing her. She was

<9;/"

attending X Standard annual examination from 30.03.2009 to

O6.04.2009.0n 05.04.2009, after attending Science-r–.,.fp_a*p,er

examination, when she came out of the school, GL:4’rura’jUan”d

six friends teased her and she got frig_htened.j'”Thain;it

near her house and found her mother’:.wa’s*not'”presen,t

house. At that time, the accusedl._broVught” the car’and’*vGL{ruraj”r0

caught hold of her hand and.made,_.he’r._to”..sit ‘thgcafr when it
was 2.00 pm. When she ‘4c’ry:,:(§ururaj threatened
her that he would kill_:he_r if ;kept quiet. Then
the victim was lnullitaichur where they
stayed for had sexual intercourse
with the victim. threatened her saying that
she should liste*n,_’_4to_’h’E’s: he also burnt her knee by
means ofagcigarette’ on 07.04.2009, Bheemanagouda

broug’.ht-olne _rhotor”cy_cfe. Then the victim and the accused went

to Andhra–..Pra’des»h they stayed for four days. From there,

VV7″they wenltto Karadakal Village. There they stayed for two days.

the \V/Victim stayed with the sister of the accused for two

i”‘n_!”i¥<a'radal<al Village. Then they went to Kamaldinni in

V Taluk. Then they went to Bombay. From there, they

R./'

returned to Gulbarga. When they went to Surpur bus–stand on
10.05.2009, police apprehended the victim as weii'*V..ajs'_:"t,he

accused.

6. The main allegation against the”petitio*n_er_.:

kidnapped the victim and took her,to different piaclelsand

forcible sexual intercourse with yi’ctin1:.§s aged more
than 16 years. Therefore, ithye the age of
consent. It is the contentionv’~of’ iapvrii/i.}F,’%_f;’:l..’counsel for the
petitioner that the;’~vi’cti§9ia and known to each
other and they The statement of
the victim discloses that they
went to Raichuuri«and* went to Andhra Pradesh
and thereafter F;-_’:om.b’ay:”.an’du then returned to Surpur. She
stavedy 2,.f:he’i–acculseydwfor more than one month. Learned

couihsei ‘v4peti’t.ioner submits that since the victim has

:70-vstayed’for moreflthlan a month and since the victim and the

_..l.l’_fac.c_u3.ed bel’o,n{;y to different community, the police in order to

4:~–‘.:su.it”«{‘he_ir.rconvenience, have recorded the statement of the

Q/,

victim by impiicating the accused in this case. There is force in

the submission of the iearned counsei for the petitionerq».,:’f.._:”=

7. When the medical report discioses tha_tlno. ‘.’ifEI”‘i.-“-i.,

found on private part and there

intercourse and further when the vict’im””after,V.’§.gtending

examination, went to her house that svheiiiiyas taken
in a car by the accused cornpany of the
accused for more than and accused
belong to different,_~:;’6%t§-‘S and 3 eing’Ee:’i’i’*njurvV.f’found on the knee
of the victim thatithere are reasonabie
grounds to accused has committed
the offence ofarapei. alieged against the petitioner is

not punishgabie ford_eat.h.f-or”‘i.n’if).risonment for life.

.’8V.=.. I._nA«.thiAs”~–.case, the investigation is compieted and

charg’esheetV”has.,_ filed. Therefore, the presence of the

petitioneriéfore’-Ttghé’jpurpose of investigation is not required. The

4, .foetitiorier.,_is judicial custody. It is weii settied law that pre-

‘V’*,V..:tr’ial_-dietention is bad in law. In the instant case, the accused is

bermanent resident of Lingasugur Taluk. Therefore, the

e/

question of petitioner absconcling or fleeing from justice is quite
uniikeiy. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, I am of the view that this is a fit case to gra.:fi~t’.,:b«a’i’i~~.at
this stage. if in

In View of the above discussion, I pass thefog|’l’o«wi’n.Ag’:-Q 1
ORDER ,s_% ~ l-:.= .

1. Petition is allowed conditionally,

2. Petitioner is granted with

3. Pét_itionefllf’7s’haii g>”be:’rv—-..released on bail in Crime
!\io.o7′;’?0()_’_’9V”‘ Police Station on his
gg.e§{ec.uting”‘atogersonal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/–
Thousand only) with two solvent sureties
to the satisfaction of the learned EMFC,
“””Linc3a.su’gur, on the following conditions:

Ex’

(i) Petitioner shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses nor obstruct the course
of justice.

(ii) He shall notjump bail.

4. If any condition is violated, the bail entails cancelhation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *