Full Judgment
1. The petitioner is in judicial custody after arrest, during investigation in Crime No.44/2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 366(A) and 376 of IPC on the basis of the report submitted by one Vasanth, uncle of a minor girl by name Baby Shalini. His attempt before the jurisdictional Court failed as the Investigating Officer has raised charge for the offence punishable under Section 376 also.
2. The State has been given opportunity to file counter, which is not done. But the learned Government Pleader Sri. Raja Subramanya Bhat has, on the basis of the material, opposed bail.
3. Heard.
4. From the report, it is noticed that the victim is said to be under 18 years and a student of II PUC in Fathima College. It is alleged that on 24.2.2011 at about 11.30 a.m. she left the house to attend the college but did not return and attempts to trace her were futile. Later, the complainant and her parents, on suspicion that the petitioner may be involved in her disappearance, contacted one Jagadish who is alleged to have revealed that the petitioner accused had taken the girl away from the company of her parents with the object of marrying her. He also revealed that the couple had left Bangalore to visit Tamil Nadu and also revealed other particulars. On that basis, the complainant lodged a report and on the basis of the report, petitioner came to be arrested. Meanwhile, the girl was also traced and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate but she refused to re-join her parents. She requested to be sent to the remand home. On this basis, it is alleged that the petitioner is not involved in kidnapping the girl and ravishing her for his lust. The learned Trial Judge, considering the material on record and the fact that the girl had in no way accused the petitioner of either kidnapping or ravishing her against her will, held material to support charge under Section 376 was lacking, but has declined bail on the conclusion chat the material supports charge for offence under Section 366.
5. All contentions in favour of the petitioner that he is innocent as the victim had not indicated him, are opposed by the learned Government Pleader pointing out to the statement of victim in which she has alleged that sexual act is against her consent or will. No doubt, as seen from the material collected the girl appears to be under 18 years. It is also seen that she has reported that the accused did have had physical intimacy, but it is pertinent to note that they have spent time together for a week, during which period, she, neither by herself or through any other mode, tried to free herself to re-join her parents or to seek help to save herself from the petitioner. A reading of her statement reveals that there is no allegation against the petitioner of any physical violence.
6. Considering the material in its entirety. It could be said that though the charges are raised against the offence punishable under Sections 366(A) and 376, but the circumstances in which the alleged offences are alleged to have been committed, are not of such nature as to hold that he will not be entitled to the benefit of bail.
7. Being of this view and without going further into the merits, petitioner is admitted to bail subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of `50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum.
(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall cause no impediment either in investigation or tamper any material.
(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission.
Accordingly, petition is allowed.