IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6492 OF 2017 BETWEEN:-
SRI. ARJUN SINGH @ ARJUN SINGH RAJ PUROHIT S/O PRATHAP SING RAJ PUROHIT, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO.9, 3RD FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, PS LANE, COTTONPET, BENGALURU -560 053. ... PETITIONER (By Sri: P P HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA COTTON PET POLICE STATION, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001 ... RESPONDENT (By Sri: K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETR. ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.148/2017 OF COTTONPET P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498,376 OF IPC. THE LIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BANGALORE HAS REJECTED THE BAIL PETITION ON 28.07.2017 IN CRL.MISC.NO.5586/2017.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent. Learned HCGP has not filed any written statement of objections opposing the petition.
2. An FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the victim alleging that she is a married lady having two children. The petitioner herein is a close family friend. He used to frequently visit the house of the victim. In the month of February 2017, he forced the victim to come with him to Ahmedabad, Gujarat and thereafter, they went to a pilgrim centre at Ramdevra and stayed there until her husband took her back to Bengaluru. Further on 24.1.2017, the petitioner called over her mobile and asked her to come near Cottonpet police station and took her to Mysore and from Mysore, the petitioner took her to Mangaluru, Mumbai, Gujarat and Rajasthan. It is alleged that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her and he videographed the intimacy acts in his mobile and threatened her that if she does not do what he says, he would show the clippings to her parents and her husband. She has further stated that on 20.06.2017, her husband alongwith Cottonpet police rescued her.
3. Though the FIR is registered under sections 498 and 376 Indian Penal Code, I find that the allegations have overtones of consensual sex. Even though the investigation is pending, having regard to the various circumstances narrated by her, I am of the view that even if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there cannot be any apprehension of the petitioner either influencing her or interfering with the investigation. The entire allegations made in the complaint are required to be substantiated only with the testimony of the petitioner. Hence the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is also not necessary except to the extent of the allegation pertaining to the videograph mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, taking into consideration all the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Hence, the following order:-
Criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall interrogate him and shall enlarge him on bail on the same day subject to the following conditions:-
a. The petitioner shall furnish a bond for Rs.1.00 lakh(Rupees One lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;
b. The petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation;
c. The petitioner shall produce all the documents in his possession before the Investigating Officer;
d. The petitioner shall not threaten or allure the victim or any other witnesses in any manner; and e. The petitioner shall not involve himself in similar offences.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-