IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA C§RCU§T EENCH AT DHARWAI) ' DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF QCreEs~Ev£é'jjj-336$ 4- _ _: " BEFORE' THE HONBLE MR..}Ufii-CE i?1VX3'd'I'\»1C)}i;.'s.l"i' 1. cRL.P.N0.7éS3'g:'2Q_g$_ % BETWEEN: 1.
Ramesh Goolappa
Age; 25 years,’ Occ:
R] o: Baichoségx; ‘ =
2. Gciolapgfiéi’
Age’; _ Major, _0(;’,(‘V.L’§2-_Ag’VI”l-.<Z"."€].1t'§'\Ll.'I'€',',
R I 0: Balahosau,
3. £ndIaWvc£1,..Wj’d5 Geo léppa Kadcmani,
~ Agg: Major, (“3–ccv;____Ho11seho1d work,
‘ ‘ – _ “vL’1R/asL’.Ba1c;aosur, Tq: Shirahatfi.
-._ ?’s._T. Kademani,
~A *Agc:: ‘1’d’a_i01;,V’Occ: Agriculture,
/0;. Bgfichosur, Tq: Shimhatti. .Petifioncrs
(By Sfi”G.N.N vm, Advocate)
A ‘State of Kamataka
” ~ ” By Laxmeshwar Police Station,
Rapid. by S.P.P., Dharwad. …Resp<mde11t
M
E./'
(By S11 P.H.Gotkh1nd1, HCGP)
3
that Akkamma was taken towards Balehosur bus–25tV}:re.I;<.i"1:'.-.T:'.I"1t1er
compl,am' ant, it is sax!' went to Balchosur
.not find his sister whence, accomprmigd 1:0 u
Laxmeshwar, Shirahatti, Guttal
having visited the house of'i1:;éi-~.accu§e¢i: at Bé11§§i;¢sur,"jwere"VL'
orally abused by 'use: of and
threat to their life, 'A.acc:j;1;?':.eu€%.VLjv'HAe;v;ce the complaint
lodgcd on 13.743303 am»..dojp.m, '
T11" fI:iéV'Vstatements of three eye»
wit:1es 5s::s'– to' thégwere mcouied, Akkamma, the
victim wagr a1»'1d~~–"'L£*subjccted to clinical examination
< ogsined that her age was between 16 and
' found 110 evidence of any physical abuse er
Tififegkamma. The investigating oficer was of the
j opi£ii9ri" the accused committed the ofiences under
1' V' " scct§m;"366~A and 367 me.
4. The itzarned Counsel for the pcfitioners contends
that three days delay in filing was fatal. Though the evidence:
prima-fa<:ie supper: the commission of the oflhncc under
Secfion 363 :.p.c., it is contended that the _
oficer made false allegations to iraelpde é
offence under Section 366(A) fi1_;_
contended that in the absence o'£_e co'1'1'ip'l'a:'1;1t L.
was forcibly taken away, for in" there
was absence of' _»Ac<:o':Arc1;ng to the
learned Couxlsei, not recorded
and file 1: home as she is
V'L'ast1y, it is contended
that and the charge sheet is
filed onL:9;9,2Gee; – '
.. V§;"'_{']V;1§ for the respon1c1ent-Stat:e submits
' Vifimt «mefenfions advanced by the learned Counsel for the
. very same contentions that were putforth
be4i?;.\1fe"'–i'e}':.a:e"S;ession-s. Court and rejected and there are no legal
" gipuniis to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
6. Having heani the learned Counsel for the parties,
perused the pleadings and the order impugned; there is little
doubt in my mind that primawfacie the era} testimony of the
M
eye-witnesses is in the direction of estab1§e£Vt1iiig’V–‘ _
Akkafi left her home in the comp_sm.y__9f ” ” 2
age’ of the victim is said to be betwécscnijfi
other words, then: is no in * ;
victim is a minor. What is.’1}3.:é_ ‘factvfihat the
victim refused to mturxi ..1:¥c’;z:;c and wished rs)
étay in a remandahemevof ‘:’c:i1’«c:*:11z1sta11c€-.3, _
puma’ ~facie .’3L ;se§.ti<5us_ to whethcr the
petitioners :ém::..f:;_x}cé ' 'go along with them.
Admitt;-f:d1y_, _A i;'»VWc:omp1cte, statements are
has fikcd the charge sheet. In
the giimumsfénfigs, "vat fiage of the proceedings, E think' it
A % is apiarcspxaatg thai the petitio3aers need ta be released on bail
% cfindiéions. The observations made in this order
shafi not in the way of the m:a1 com adjudicafing the
1n,attei:'_dI§. merits.
° 7. In the result, this petition is aflnwcd. Petitioners are
on bail in connection with Crime No.93/2008 of
Laxmcshwar Polftcc Station, Gadag iffistrict, on each of them
executing a persmaal bond for a sum of Rs.5(},O00/ ~ with one
M
surety for the: said sum to the satisfaction of
court, subject to the following condijipnsz
(1′) The petitioners shall
to the 1nvesfigafih_g”Agcncy- as ._wy,i§:n–VVthéy ‘
required;
(ii) The pefifiofiém ” tamper with the
prosecution V 1 ._
(iii) éhal I m vg'”.–~. jg” ‘ifieir attendance once
—- . Sunday between 10.00
1 ‘pflm. before the Laxmcshwar
4’ PoI1’cc disposal of the Sessions
%%%%% sd/..
‘Judge