IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.2052/2019 BETWEEN:
Harisha K S/o Ramaiah Aged about 32 years r/at, KUppe Village Hallimysore Hobli Holenarasipura Taluk Hassan District-34.
(By Sri.Pratheep K.C, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka Represented by Hallimysore Police station Hassan District Represented by its State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560 001 (By Sri.S.Rachaiah, HCGP) ... Petitioner ... Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.212/2018 registered by Hallymysore Police Station, Hassan for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 376 and 417 of IPC.
The Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner has filed the petition seeking to enlarge him on bail in connection with his detention relating to proceedings in Crime No.212/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 376, 313, 417 of IPC.
2. The facts that are made out in the complaint are that the victim, who is the complainant was married with one Prem Kumar. It is stated that the petitioner used to visit the house of the complainant in the absence of complainant’s husband and threaten the complainant with the dire consequences unless she listens to him. It is further stated that petitioner had promised to marry the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was having consensual sexual relationship with the complainant. It is further stated that the complainant had conceived and she had aborted at the instance of the petitioner. It is also stated that she had filed a petition for divorce against her husband at the instigation of the petitioner. First Information Report came to be registered and the petitioner has been arrested and has been in custody since 19.12.2018.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the complainant is aged about 24 years and admittedly, there was a consensual sexual relationship between the petitioner and the complainant. It is further stated that the story of the complainant cannot be believed and it ought to be noted that complaint has been filed with much delay. It is noted that the investigation is completed. The perusal of the complaint would also indicate the consensual sexual relationship between the petitioner and complainant. Though the complainant has alleged that there was threat from the petitioner the said matter is subject to proof during trial. Taking note of the fact that the investigation is completed, and the averments in the complainant and the totality of the facts it would be a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Prima facie the delay in the complaianat logding the complaint of about one year casts doubts on the story of the prosecution.
4. The very commission of the offence prima facie appears doubtful in the light of contention of the petitioner regarding consent. It is to be noted that the Sessions Judge has dismissed the application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C and observing that the version of the complainant is corroborated by the neighbors. It is to be noted that in the present factual matrix, the evidence of the complainant alone is of the highest significance. Though the complainant has stated that the relationship with the petitioner was under threat by the petitioner however this aspect of the matter is to be proved during the trial. The petitioner may be enlarged on bail subject to following conditions:-
(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with a surety for the likesum before the concerned Court.
(ii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the expeditious disposal of the trial.
(iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or any witness in any manner.
Sd/- JUDGE ag