AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Narendar, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader.
The petitioner before this Court is accused No. 4 and sister of accused No. 1, who is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)F, 366(A), 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act and Section 3(1)(10)(11) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the only allegation against the petitioner is that she has abused the complainant. He submits that the invocation of the provision of the SC/ST (POA) Act is an after thought and only with the intention of falsely implicating the petitioner. He draws the attention of the Court to the copy of the complaint which was first made by the complainant to submit that there is no whisper about the allegation against the petitioner having taken the name of the caste of the complainant with the intention of insulting her. He has also drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed by this Court in Cri.P.No.3082/2016 while enlarging on bail the other accused. This Court in para 3 of the order has observed as follows:
"P3. The allegations are vague. The accusation of the complainant having been kidnapped and having been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse is lost in continuous narration of the sequence of events. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail, especially since accused Nos. 2 and 3 have already been enlarged on bail."
The aforesaid observation of this Court and reading of the complaint dated 11.11.2015, would go to prima facie demonstrate that the petitioner may not have committed any act which would constitute the offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act.
Learned Government Pleader would submit that the complainant in her subsequent statement has alleged the act against the petitioner which would constitute an offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act and hence, he would submit that in the light of the bar under Section 18 of the Act, this petition is not maintainable.
It is not in dispute that in the complaint dated 11.11.2015, there is no allegation against the petitioner for having invoked the name of the caste of the complainant with the intention of insulting her. In that view of the matter, subsequent statement appears to be an after thought.
In view of the above facts and also keeping in view the order passed by this Court in respect of the other petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant relief to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner. However, it is made clear that the observations made herein are for the purpose of considering the bail petition only and the Trial Court shall remain uninfluenced by the observations made in this case.
In the event of arrest of the petitioner in Crime No. 30/2016 of Bethamangala Police Station, she shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:
a) Petitioner shall surrender before the 1.0. of the jurisdictional police station within twenty days from today and in such event, petitioner shall be released on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the I.O.
b) Petitioner shall co-operate with the I.O. in conducting further investigation, without fail.
c) Petitioner shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses or lure them in any manner.
d) Petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activities.
e) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 20 days from today to execute bond.
f) If the petitioner violates any one of the conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.