Sharan Rohidas Poojary vs The State of Karnataka

N. Ananda, J.—The petitioner is arrayed as accused in Crime No. 56/2008 registered for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 392 IPC.

The petitioner is in judicial custody. The learned Sessions Judge, had dismissed the application for hail.

I have heard Sri. K.M. Nataraj, learned Counsel for petitioner arid learned Government Pleader for the State and F hove been taken through records.

The gist of the first information lodged by Victim is as follows:

The; victim is a resident, of Rkknr Village, Kankanady, Mangalore (D.K.). On 9.3.2008 the victim performed the marriage of her daughter - Soumya. On the same day victim decided to go to Manjeshwara. The victim did not inform any of her family members. The victim left, her house at about 11.30 p.m on 9.3.2008. She was wearing a nighty and she was carrying gold jewels in a bag and cash of Rs. 1,60,000/-. The victim came near Fisheries college, Mangalore and she was waiting for the bus to go to Manjeshwara. At that time, two persona aged about 30 years own on a motor cycle and enquired the victim as to why she was waiting there. The victim told them that she was waiting for a bus to go to Manjeshwara. One of them invited the victim to drop ties at Manjeshwara on his motor cycle. The victim though reluctant was enamoured by their words, had agreed to travel with them on their motor cycle. Then are amongst them rode the motor cycle and the victim was the pillion rider. The other person returned to his house. That person took the victim on his motor cycle to an isolated place near Yenopoee college, stopped his motor cycle, He threatened the victim by showing a knife and committed rape on her. Thereafter, by pointing a knife he robbed gold jewels and cash of Rs. 1,60,000/- from possession of victim and fled away on his motor cycle.

The victim stayed in the same place during that night On the following day morning (on 10.3.2009) at 6.00 a.m. she reached Manjeshwara and visited the house of one Ralakrishna and informed the occurrence to him. As the newly wedded daughter of the victim was to go to her in laws house, victim did not inform. the occurrence to her family members. On 19.3.2008 the victim Informed the occurrence to her son, daughter in law and brother in law. The victim had washed her nighty arid inner garments.

All these facts are narrated in the first information lodged on 19.3.2008. It is also stated in the first information, culprit was aged about 25 years, he had a good physique and he was about five feet in height. He was wearing a grey shirt and a soiled colour jeans pant He was wearing a cap. The investigating officer arrested the petitioner. It is alleged, after arrest, of petitioner, information volunteered, which led to recovery of certain gold ornaments.

On careful consideration of the contents of first information, I find certain unnatural circumstances. The victim has no stated the compelling circumstance for her to leave her house et about 11.30 p.m. on the marriage day of her daughter without interning any members of her family. The victim had no reasons to carry cash of Rs. 1,60,000/- and jewels particularly when she had left the house at about 11.30 p.m. The victim has nor stated the compelling reasons which she had to leave her house at 11.30 p.m. by carrying cash of Rs. 1,60,000/- and gold jewels to go to Manjeshwara The victim has not stated reasons, the circumstances under which the agreed to travel with the petitioner on his motor cycle. The victim had kept silent till 19.03.008, In view of these circumstances, at this stage of the case, it Is not possible to hold that there is prima facie case against accused for the offences alleged against him.

The learned trial judge has referred to certain cases pending against accused. The learned trial judge has stated pendency of cases as one of the reasons to reject, bail application.

On consideration of the material made available by the Government Pleads against petitioner and another person (arrayed as accused No. 1) Crime No. 64/2008 registered on 5.4.2008 and it is still pending. The first accused Crime No. 64/2008 was released on hail in Crl. Petition No. 2847/5/2008 dated 16.07.2008 and this Court while granting bail to I accused in Crime No. 64/2008 has held that complainant therein had suffered two simple injuries and another injured had suffered one simple injury. Therefore, tendency of Crime No. 64/2008 cannot be a ground to reject bail application of petitioner.

The situation of petitions intimidation or tampering with prosecution witnesses and fleeing away from justice could be avoid by imposing suitable conditions.

In the result, criminal petition is accepted. The petitioner is granted hail subject to following conditions:

I. The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and shall offer two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional sessions court.

II. The petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses in. The petitioner shall regularly attend the Court.

IV. The petitioner shall mark his attendance in Mangalore Rural Police Station, on every Wednesday and Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. till the conclusion of trial.