PRADEEP REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners. The first of these petitions is filed by the Accused No. 1 and the second of these petitions is filed by Accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7. The petitioners are arraigned as accused in the following circumstances: It transpires that the complainant's wife had gone out to fetch water at 2.00 a.m. and since she did not return, it transpires that her daughter Ankitha had come out of the house, to look for her, at which point of time, it is alleged, that Accused No. 1 who had come along with several other accused, had caught hold of her and was dragging her away, by which time the girl's father and brother had also come out of the house, but they could not stop the accused taking her away. She was alleged to have been taken away in a car, with the help of the other accused. It thereafter transpires that on the next day, that is on 4.4.2013, though the incident had taken place between the intervening night of 3.4.2013 and 4.4.2013 at 2.00 a.m., her father had lodged a complaint only in the evening of 4.4.2013 at 6.30 p.m., to the effect that his daughter had been kidnapped, under threat of harm to the complainant and his family members, by the accused. It thereafter transpires that the alleged victim had surfaced before the District Court and had sought to file a petition that she be sent to a remand home, as she was a minor, she was not inclined to go with the accused persons. She was later asked to appear before the Authorised Officer and on 10.04.2013, she appeared before the Authorised Officer and sought that she wanted to go to her parent's home. It is in that background that the complainant had brought her before the police and on her statement being recorded, a case has been registered against the present petitioner and other accused -for offences punishable under Sections 366 -A, 114 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC for brevity).

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that several accused have been enlarged on bail. Accused No. 6 has been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 2482/2013 by order dated 7.5.2013 and Accused No. 8 has been released by the Sessions Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and that Accused No. 9 has also been released. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, given the sequence of events, the conduct of the complainant does not appear to be natural. If at an unearthly hour the accused had dragged away the petitioner's young daughter and the complainant not having sought the assistance of his neighbours or having immediately rushed to the Police Station in this regard, is wholly unnatural and the fact that the girl has remained elsewhere and has not raised any complaint nor has protested about the confinement by the accused, is again inexplicable. Further, the alleged victim having appeared before a court of law and having filed a petition -; would add to the confusion of the manner in which the incident is said to have taken place. The other circumstances are that the girl has not suffered any injuries nor is there any allegation of sexual violation. Therefore, the allegation that she has been forcibly taken away by Accused No. 1 along with the assistance of others and there is a serious case made out, is not easily discernable from the material that is available and hence, would submit that the allegations even if they are construed as serious offences, would necessarily have to be established at the trial as prima facie, there is serious doubt created about the criminal conduct that is alleged against the petitioners. Though the learned Government Pleader would raise a serious objection as to the consideration of grant of anticipatory bail and would contend that it is open for the petitioners to go and surrender before the court below and assist in the investigation by the authorities, and that the petitions be rejected, given the above circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there appear to be several missing links and there is no explanation forthcoming as to the 'laid -back' conduct of the father of the victim if indeed the incident had occurred in the manner that it is stated. Hence, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of relief. In the event of the petitioners' arrest, they shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioners shall execute self bonds each for a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - with solvent sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the court below. (ii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the concerned police, as and when required and shall assist and co -operate in the investigation by the authorities. (iii) The petitioners shall not induce or threaten any prosecution witnesses. (iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court below without prior permission of the court below.