IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. No. 3780/2019 BETWEEN SRI. MANIGANDAN, S/O DAYALU M. AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O NO.201, 4TH CROSS 17TH MAIN, FF LAYOUT LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560 058 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. T. NANAIAH, SR. ADV. ALONG WITH SRI. AKASH V. T., ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NANDINI LAYOUT POLICE STATION BENGALURU, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. P. YOGANNA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.566/2018 OF NANDINI LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376, 417, 420 READ WITH 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the Respondent–State. Perused the records.
2. The report submitted by a lady by Name Gayathri, daughter of Dasharathan K., to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Yeshwanthpur North Division, Bengaluru. Pursuant to the said complaint, a case has been registered against the petitioner and other three accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417, 420 r/w. 34 of IPC.
3. The allegations in brief are that, the petitioner and the complainant were working in M/s. TCS, which is a Multi National Company situated in Electronic City since 2014. It appears, they developed love with each other and for about two years they wandered together at various places. It is also alleged that the petitioner/accused, one day took her to his house at Laggere and even thereafter for two to three times, he took her to his house and in spite of her reluctance, he touched her body and kissed her and incited her for sexual activity and in spite of her resistance, he had sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, on 10.12.2012 he took her to Pandichery and there, they went to a Resort and stayed for three days. In the resort, with an assurance that he would marry the complainant, he had sexual intercourse with her. After coming back to Bengaluru, they lived together for some time and during that time also about 4 or 5 times, the petitioner/accused has misbehaved with her and had sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter it appears some rift started between the complainant and the petitioner and when she demanded for marriage, he refused to marry her. Then the previous acts of the petitioner/accused cropped-up as if rape committed on her without her consent and Will. It is also alleged that, when she had been to the house of the accused, at that time, the mother and brother-in- law of the petitioner have also abused her in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences. Therefore, she lodged a complaint against the petitioner and his family members.
4. On the basis of the above said complaint, apprehending arrest, other accused persons have approached the Sessions Court seeking bail and they were already released on bail. But, the petitioner’s petition for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Sessions Court. Therefore, he is before this court.
5. On a plain reading of the above factual aspects, it is difficult at this stage to come to a conclusion as it is not clear as to whether there was any live-in-relationship between the petitioner/accused and the complainant or there was any force by her to live with the accused for some time and to go to Pandichery or whether with full consent both of them went to various places and there they had sexual intercourse with each other or whether there was any cheat done by the petitioner/accused and as to what exactly the difference arose between the petitioner and the complainant. Therefore, all these aspects have to be unearthed during the course of full-dressed trial. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail, as prayed for. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.566/2018 of Nandini Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC, which is now pending on the file of VII ACMM Court, Bengaluru City, subject to following conditions:-
i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and he shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
ii) The petitioner shall not hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*