IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7895/2019 BETWEEN:
P.DINESH BABU @ DINESH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O.SUNKANNA, R/AT FLAT NO.202, 2ND FLOOR, BALAJI GRAND APARTMENT, BANDALAGUDA JAGIR, HYDERABAD TOWN, HYDERABAD CITY, TELANGANA STATE – 500 030. … PETITIONER (BY SRI M.T.NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI M.R.C.MANOHAR, ADV.,) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY K.R.PURAM POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. MISS DARSHINI P.L. D/O.P.LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT 48, FIRST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, BRUNDAVAN LAYOUT, AYYAPPA NAGAR, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU – 560 036. .. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP. FOR R1, SRI A.T.MALLYA, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.391/2019 REGISTERED BY K.R.PURAM POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376, 354A, 493 AND 417 IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Sri M.T.Nanaiah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri A.T.Mallya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 – complainant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 in Crime No.391/2019 registered by the respondent – Police for the offence under Sections 376, 417, 354(A), 109, 493 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. Brief factual matrix as emanate from the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 herein for the above said offences are that, the complainant was aged about 24 years and she was a social activist and doing some social work without creating any hype for herself and she was active member of social front and associated with some NGOs. She has stated that as she was looking for life partner, she came in contact with the petitioner on 08.04.2019 and also they exchanged their profiles and have both expressed interest with each other and decided to marry each other. After reaching this stage, family discussion was also taken place between the family members. In this background, it is stated that on 04.05.2019, petitioner went to the house of victim and spent lot of time there and also he requested her to accompany him to a hotel under the guise of further discussion and they spent entire night in the said hotel and it is alleged that against her consent, he committed sexual act on her like a monster, etc. But thereafter also, on 05.05.2019 and 06.05.2019 they had sexual act with each other. It is stated that though she was reluctant to have sexual act, the same has happened.
Subsequently also, he had taken her to Ooty and they enjoyed sex together during that time. It is alleged that in order to avoid her, he lured her with a job at Hyderabad. She went there and she stayed in the house of the petitioner and there also, they had physical contact with each other. But thereafter, it appears that some differences arose and on 30.06.2019, she made several attempts to call him over phone, but he tried to avoid her. But he ultimately told her that she should not come back to him and not to show her face, etc. On hearing him, she came back to her parental house and lodged the complaint on 12.07.2019.
4. The above said factual aspects as noted in the complaint shows that it is not the first physical contact that was against to her will as stated by her. But subsequently, they continued physical contact with each other on so many occasions going out from Bengaluru city and enjoyed sex with each other. The age of the victim girl, her educational qualification, her social activities and she having associated with NGOs, shows that she is not an uneducated lady and that too without knowing the consequences, she participated herself with the petitioner. Therefore, during the course of trial, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was not a consensual sexual contract in order to attract the provisions of Section 376 of IPC and other provisions as invoked by the respondent - Police. Therefore, in the above said facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the petitioner, who has already been in judicial custody, is no more required for further investigation. Hence, by imposing stringent conditions, petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.391/2019 of K.R. Puram Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 417, 354(A), 109, 493 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the court till the case registered against him is disposed of.
(v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on Sunday between 10 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till filing of the charge sheet or for a period of two months, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE PKS