IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.1227 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
1. Ambarish Son of Narasimhaiah Aged about 38 years Field Officer in Handiman Services Limited, no.3/1 Infant 28th Avenue, 2nd floor and 4th floor, Srinivagilu main road, Ejipura junction Bengaluru – 560 047 2. Manjunath Son of Mallaiah Aged 42 years Supervisor in Handiman Services Limited, no.3/1 Infant 28th Avenue, 2nd floor and 4th floor, Srinivagilu main road, Ejipura junction Bengaluru – 560 047 …Petitioners (By Sri. J.Hudson Samuel, Advocate) AND:
The State by Amruthahalli Police Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bangalore - 01 …Respondent (By Sri. M.Diwakar Paddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in crime No.10/2018 of Amruthahally police station, Bangalore City for the offence P/U/S 506, 354 r/w 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C to release them on anticipatory bail in Crime No.10/2018 of Amruthahally Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 506 and 354 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent –State.
3. The gist of the complaint reads as under:-
The complainant was working as a house keeper in a House Keeping Company and as per the instructions, she was working at Sindhi High School and accused No.1 was as a Field Officer and accused No.2 was working as a Supervisor of that school. It is alleged that they used to inspect the school once in a week. It is further alleged that since the complainant was working under the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, they used to misbehave with her at the working place and petitioner/accused No.2 used to molest at the time of assigning the work. In that light on 23.01.2018, at about 01:30 p.m., when she was in the ladies restroom at Singhi High School, the petitioner/accused No.1 came there and he caught hold of her and when she raised hue and cry, he left the place and petitioner No.2 in the guise of entrusting work, he often used to touch her cheek and chest and when she protested he used to threaten her. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence. He further submitted that no complaint has been registered either to the management of school or no previous information is given in this behalf against the petitioners. He further submitted that as the superiors of the complainant, the accused/petitioners have warned her against indiscipline and wayward behavior in the work spot and when they tried to extract work from her, in order to overcome the same, she filed a false complaint against the petitioners. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He also submitted that, as the alleged incident took place in a School, if she has made hue and cry, somebody would have been come to her rescue but nobody has come to the said place. This aspect clearly goes to show that no such incident has taken place as alleged by the complainant. The petitioners are ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this court and ready to offer sureties. On all these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 used to misbehave with the victim/complainant and on the date of the alleged incident, accused No.2 entered ladies rest room and there he has touched the cheek and chest of the complainant. Even accused No.1 had caught hold her and tried to outrage her modesty. Therefore, the offences are serious and if petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are enlarged on bail, they may not be available for investigation and interrogation and they may abscond. As investigation still in progress, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are required for interrogation. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and other materials, which have been produced in this behalf and also considered the submissions made by learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
7. A close reading of the contents of the complaint, it discloses that complaint has been registered on 29.01.2018 at about 07:00 p.m., Before registration of the case, nowhere the complainant whispered that immediately she informed about the incident to the institution or management and the management has taken action against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 about their alleged act. It is also noticed that if she has made hue and cry, somebody should have came to her rescue, but nobody has come to her rescue.
8. Be that as it may. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, the offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, I feel if by imposing stringent conditions, petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are ordered to be enlarged on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
9. In the light of the discussion made above, petition is allowed and the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of their arrest in Crime No.10/2018 of Amruthahally Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 506 & 354 read with 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
1. Each of the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh only) with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer.
2. They shall surrender before the Investigation Officer within 15 days from today.
3. They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence either directly or indirectly.
4. They shall mark their attendance once in 15 days between 10.00 a.m., to 5.00 p.m., before the jurisdictional police station till the charge sheet is filed.
5. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
6. They shall be available for investigation and interrogation.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ