Fakirappa Galeppa Anawal And Another v. The State Of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the records. One Maruti Beemarao Kumbar of Eli Munavalli, Ramadurga taluk, has filed a complaint against the petitioners. The complainants daughter by name Shivani, aged about four years was studying in Shree Shiva yogeshwara Convent Kannada School. Petitioner No. 1 was working as Head Master and petitioner No. 2 as Assistant Master in the said school. It is alleged that on 25.09.2013 during lunch hour these petitioners have took the victim girl to their chambers and sexually harassed the said girl by putting their fingers into private part of said girl. On the same day at about 6.30 p.m. Shivanis mother after seeing her daughter being not cheerful has enquired and came to know about the incident. On these allegations a complaint came to be lodged.

2. The learned Counsel for petitioners has brought to my notice that on 27.09.2013 the complainant has voluntarily given one more statement before police stating that they have actually not made any allegations against the petitioners, but under misconception they have made such allegations against petitioners. In the said statement he has stated that his daughter has sustained injury to her private part while playing and that they have not given any statement before the Doctor making allegations against these two petitioners. He has further stated that the victim girl was aged about four years and she cannot understand anything, and therefore, by misunderstanding the teachers, a misconceived complaint came to be lodged against them.

3. Subsequently, on 06.10.2013 he has made another statement repeating allegations made by him, at the first instance, while lodging the FIR. He requested the police to take action against the petitioners. It appears that, on 06.10.2013 police went to school and recorded the statements of some of the witnesses, particularly the school teachers, who were working in the said school. They have stated that on the date of incident the said girl was taken by the petitioners to their chambers and after some time she came back from said room and thereafter she was not cheerful in the school and for sometime she was sleeping in the school. On these allegations, the petitioners were arrested on 08.01.2014 and since then they are in judicial custody.

4. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is completed and charge sheet is under scrutiny and it will be filed very soon before the Court. Looking to the above said factual circumstances and also the medical examination of the girl, it is true that there is some injury to the private part of girl, but the question is what has actually happened to the said girl. Whether the statements of complainant given by him on 26.09.2013 and 06.10.2013 have to be believed or the statement given on 27.09.2013 has to be believed is the question for consideration. When two different statements are available against the petitioners, at this stage, for the limited purpose for consideration of bail, in my opinion, the statement which is favourable to the accused - petitioners has to be taken into consideration leaving apart the proof to be given by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt as alleged against the petitioners. As the petitioners are injudicial custody since 08.01.2014 and investigation has already been completed, in my opinion, by means of imposing stringent conditions the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

Petition filed u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Petitioners are released on bail, subject to the following conditions:

(i) Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. each with two solvent, sureties for a likesum to the satisfaction of trial Court.

(ii) Petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) Petitioners shall appear before trial Court on all future hearing dates, unless prevented by any genuine cause.

(iv) Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of trial Court without prior permission, till the case registered against them is disposed of.