IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.8833/2018 BETWEEN:
Rakshith Shetty Aged about 21 years S/o Jayanth Shetty R/o. Anagalli Village & Post Kundapura Taluk Udupi District-576 201.
(By Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, Advocate) AND:
State by Women Police Station Udupi Udupi District, Represented by the Office of the Special Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri K.P. Yoganna, HCGP) …Petitioner … Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.29/2018 of Women Police Station, Udupi for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 504 of Indian Penal Code.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/ accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release him on anticipatory bail in Crime No.29/2018 of Women police station for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 504 of Indian Penal Code.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The genesis of the complaint are that the first complaint was registered on 20.9.2018 alleging that she was working in a Rose Beauty Parlour at Kundapura, the petitioner was creating trouble and as such complainant requested the police to enquire into the matter. It is further alleged in the complaint filed on 20.9.2019 that she became a friend of the accused through face book, later started loving with each other. The petitioner took the complainant at various place like Sringeri, Agumbe etc. and on 22.9.2018 they went to Agumbe and Sringeri and came through Manipal. While returning it became very late night, the petitioner/accused and the complainant stayed in Sushma lodge, Manipal and on that night the accused under the promise of marriage had sex with the complainant. Thereafter, he started to avoid her calls and on 18.9.2018 when the complainant called the petitioner through her mobile phone, he refused to marry her and scolded her in filthy language. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered in the above said crime number.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the first complaint which is filed on 20.9.2018 there was no allegation about the sexual assault, only allegation which has been made is the accused is troubling and suitable action may be taken, but in the subsequent complaint filed on 30.9.2018 she has alleged about the sexual act committed by the accused.
There is inconsistency in the statements given by the complainant, second complaint is also filed after 10 days from filing of the first complaint. He further submitted that in the complaint itself she has specifically stated that she was aged about 19 years and as such the said act will not attract the provisions of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that in the second complaint she has stated that she became a friend in the face book. All these materials clearly goes to show that it is a false complaint alleged against the petitioner/accused. He further submitted that even the date of birth of the complainant is 6.2.2001 and as on the date of the alleged incident she was 17½ years’ old, she was knowing the consequences. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that still the investigation is in progress. The medical records and the 164 statement of the victim recorded clearly shows that the victim has been sexually assaulted by the accused. He further submitted that, the first complaint was filed only when he refused to marry and the second complaint is filed because of the sexual assault. He further submitted that it is not a fit case to release the petitioner/accused on anticipatory bail. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of the complaints dated 20.9.2018 and 30.9.2018 there are inconsistencies in the complaints, but the one fact is very clear that the sexual assault has been made by the petitioner/accused is borne out from the complaint. When the petitioner/accused has involved in the offence of sexual assault, then under such circumstances, I feel it is not a fit case to release the petitioner/accused on anticipatory bail, that too when the investigation is still under progress and the complainant has also made specific allegation about the sexual act.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
However, liberty is given to the petitioner/accused, in the event of surrender before the Court and applies for regular bail, the above observation will not come in the way of disposing of the regular bail application.
Sd/- JUDGE *AP/-