IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7939 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
SRI. B.D.DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O DODDAIAH RESIDENT OF BYADARAHALLI KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 101.
(BY SRI.S.B.MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE BY KARKALA TOWN POLICE REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE – 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.146/2018 OF KARKALA TOWN POLICE STATION, UDUPI DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 417, 376, 323, 506 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Karkala Town Police have registered Crime No.146/2018 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 417, 376, 323 and 506 of IPC on the basis of the complaint of victim girl ‘x’ (for the purpose of confidentiality victim is referred to as ‘x’ henceforth).
2. It is alleged that the petitioner befriended the complainant and on 26.11.2017, he took her to his quarters for dinner and administering her some sedative substance, committed rape on her. It is alleged that when she questioned him, he pleaded that he will marry her and requested her not to divulge incident to anybody. Thereafter, by blackmailing her, he committed repeated sexual assault on her in his official residence and intimidated her not to force him to marry her.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint and the act alleged is consensual one. He relies upon the following judgments of this Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court.
1) Kumaresh Chikkappa Bagodi vs. State of Karnataka, Kolghatigi Polilce reported in ILR 2001 KAR 4964 2) Uday vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2003) 4 SCC 46 4. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that the statement of the victim and other material such as C.D. records show that the act was not consensual one. It is submitted that the petitioner himself being the police official is elusive.
5. The statement of the victim recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and other material on record at this stage indicate that the victim was subjected to sexual assault administering her some sedative and thereafter, by emotional blackmail, he committed repeated sexual assault. Under these circumstances, at this stage, delay in filing the complaint cannot be blown out of proportion.
6. The petitioner himself is a police constable.
The police have not arrested him since from the date of registration of FIR on 12.09.2018 and the investigation is still pending.
7. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner were rendered on full-fledged trial. Whether the act of the petitioner is consensual one or not is a matter to be decided on a full-fledged trial.
8. Having regard to these facts and circumstances and as the petitioner himself is serving in a police department, there is a chance of petitioner tampering the witness if anticipatory bail is granted. Hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Therefore, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Prs*