Gravity of Criminal Offence alone cannot be decisive ground to deny Bail

Kritika Pandey | Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda | 4th January 2020

Santosh S/O Krishnappa Danakanakeri Vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 101779/2019

FACTS:

1. A complaint was registered by the brother of the deceased-victim that the accused petitioner has kidnapped his sister. On the basis of the said complaint, the case was registered at Koppal Rural Police Station. Later, the victim girl committed suicide.
2. Thereafter, on the basis of the statement of the mother of the deceased, the Police have registered the case in Koppal Rural Police Station for the aforesaid offenses. The accused was arrested. Since then, he is in judicial custody. The bail petition filed before the Sessions Court was rejected.

PETITIONER CONTENTION:

1. The counsel for the petitioner contended that, on the day of the complaint, the victim girl was more than 17 years old and she understand the consequences. In the statement recorded U/S 164 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate, she has not disclosed about the kidnapping or sexual harassment or the rape committed by the accused. The charge sheet has already been filed. Since nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner, as his custodial interrogation is not necessary, this petitioner cannot be allowed to incarcerate in jail for indefinite period.
2. It is submitted that on account of the arrest of the petitioner-accused, she went into depression and committed suicide. Even in the initial complaint filed by the brother of the victim girl, it is nowhere stated that she was sexually exploited.

RESPONDENT CONTENTION:

1. The learned Govt. Pleader submitted that keeping in view the gravity of the offenses allegedly committed by the petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 
2. The petitioner taking undue advantage of the innocence of the victim girl, who was a minor at the time of the alleged incident, was sexually assaulted. Thereafter, on account of the subsequent events, the victim girl was compelled to commit suicide. There is a prima facie evidence to prove the complicity and involvement of the accused-petitioner. Thus, he is not entitled for bail.

HELD:

1. This Court finds that it has come in the evidence of the prosecutrix recorded u/S 164 of Cr.P.C. that she had gone with the accused-petitioner on her own volition and had joined the company of the petitioner on the day of the alleged incident. Further she has stated that she resided along with the petitioner-accused for 18 days and the Police have brought her before the Court. 
2. This Court finds no force in the arguments of the learned Govt. Pleader that the victim girl was kidnapped by taking undue advantage of her innocence. Nowhere it suggests that the victim girl was incapable of understanding or answering the questions put to her by the Court. 
3. In the instant case, the charge sheet has been filed and no grounds are made out to infer that in the event of petitioner enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice or going to tamper the prosecution witnesses.
4. Recently, the Honorable Apex Court in C.A. No. 227/2018 [2018(2) AICLR (S.C.)204], Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Decided that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his guilt has not been proved. A person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 
5. By now it is well settled that gravity alone cannot be decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion.
6. The main objection of the prosecution is that, in the event of granting bail, the accused-petitioner is likely to tamper the prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds to consider the bail subject to terms and conditions.