KARTHIK @ NAGENDRA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is arraigned as Accused No. 1 in Cr. No. 23/2013 on the file of Ramanagara Rural Police Station, Ramanagara, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 376 and 343 of IPC, is before this Court seeking for grant of regular bail. When the charge -sheet was filed, it was for the offences under Sections 366(A), 376, 343 of IPC read with Section 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Act, 2012. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution as per the averments in the complaint are that the complainant/CW -1 lodged the complaint stating that she is a resident of Belagavadi Village, Madabala Hobli and she is aged about 16 years. She is studying in Jalamangala Government P.U. College and she travels from Belakavadi to Jalamangala by bus. While going to the College, one boy used to come near the college and he used to talk to her and introduced himself as Karthik @ Nagendra. On 07.01.2013, when she was returning from the College to her house, the said Karthik came near her and forced her to sit in his car and took her to Archakarahalli near Ramanagara to his friend's house and restrained her in the said house from 07.01.2013 to 12.01.2013 and forcefully had sex with her and when the said Karthik went to Bidadi, she escaped from that house and returned to her mother's house in Magadi and informed her mother about the incident and has lodged the said complaint before the Magadi Police Station. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered by the Respondent Police.

(2.) HEARD the arguments for the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for the Respondent -State.

(3.) PERUSED the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the statement of witnesses produced along with the charge -sheet. By looking into the statement of the victim girl, she has clearly stated that the petitioner/accused No. 1 took her to his friend's house, confined her in that house from 07.01.2013 to 12.01.2013 and inspite of her objections, he forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. The medical reports prima facie goes to show that there is a rupture of hymen. Recording the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no consistency in the statement of the victim girl and her mother and other witnesses are concerned, it is for the Trial Court to ascertain during the trial and not at this stage while considering the bail petition. Looking into the materials on record, the material prima facie goes to show the involvement of the petitioner in collusion of the alleged offences. Offence alleged under Section 376 is serious and heinous offence, having grievous and serious repercussions even on the Society at large. Therefore, looking to the material on record, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner and release him on bail. Accordingly, petition is rejected.