IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4461/2019 BETWEEN:
Mr. RAJA REDDY S/O VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT SHEKAR BUILDING 4TH CROSS, MADHURANAGAR VARTHUR, BANGALORE-560087 AND ALSO AT:
K.DEVAGANAHALLI VILLAGE CHILAKALANERPU HOBLI CHINTHAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-563125. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJESHA SHETTIGARA, ADV.) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION BANGALORE-560079 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-01. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI HONNAPPA, HCGP.) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.255/2018 OF KAMAKSHIPALYA P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 313, 376, 420, 417 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard. Perused the records.
2. That on the complaint lodged by a victim lady by name Vanitha, aged 22 years, the police have registered a case in Cr.No.255/2018 for the offence punishable under sections 376, 420, 313 and 417 of Indian Penal Code.
3. The facts that emanate from the FIR are that the complainant was a divorcee and since two years she was residing alone and she was working as an artist in T.V. serials. In this backdrop, it is alleged that, nine months ago, she came in contact with the accused and they used to talk with each other over phone and he assured her to marry her inspite of knowing that she is a divorcee. Thereafter, they entered into physical contact with each other on various occasions as a result of which the complainant became pregnant. She disclosed the same to the accused, but he told that he doesn’t want child at that particular point of time, therefore he made her to consume some tablets for the purpose of abortion. Thereafter, he did not contact her and as such, she lodged a complaint alleging cheating and also for the offence under Section 376 of IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the nature of allegation and the facts of the case disclose that the victim is a clear consent party and knowing fully well of the consequence, she joined hands with the accused. Therefore, at this stage, there are no materials to construe that there was an offence under Section 376 of IPC and the other offences are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. Under the above said circumstances, when there is a doubt with regard to the offence under Section 376 of IPC being attracted, in my opinion, particularly the petitioner, who is in custody for more than two months, is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence the following:
O R D E R The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Cr.No.255/2018 of Kamakshipalya Police Station, registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 313 and 417 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1 lakh (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or 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.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: