IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO. 7293/2019 BETWEEN SRI. RAJARAMALAL S/O B.VITTAL LAL AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/A FLAT NO.107 1ST FLOOR, 7TH CROSS CHETHAN CAMPAIGN ALFA GARDE KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD K.R.PURAM BENGALURU – 560 036 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHYRESH. V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY K.R.PURAM POLICE STATION BENGALURU DISTRICT REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH court COMPLEX BENGALURU – 560 001 (BY SRI. ROHITH.B.J., HCGP) … RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.484/2019 OF K.R.PURAM P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/Ss. 354-B, 509, 323, 341 AND 506 R/W 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 complainant-Smt. Varsha Naveen, aged 29 years has filed a complaint against the petitioner and another before the respondent-K.R.Puram Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 354-B, 509, 323, 341, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and the same was registered in Crime No.484/2019. Out of these, the offences under Section 354-B and 506 are non-bailable in nature.
3. The allegations made against the petitioner in brief are that, the petitioner is none other than the brother-in-law of the husband of the complainant. They were all living together in a house. The husband of the complainant-Naveen was addicted to alcohol and he was the regular visitor of night clubs etc. Taking advantage of the said situation, it is alleged that the petitioner wanted to develop some intimacy with the complainant and therefore, on several occasions he made attempts to persuade the complainant to show sexual favours to him. He also made attempts to outrage her modesty as and when the occasion permitted by going to the bed room of this lady and also taking advantage of the situation whenever she is alone in the house. However, from the year 2015 up to 2018 such things have been happened. It appears, in the year 2015, the complainant left the matrimonial house and went to their parents house because of the ill- treatment and harassment by her husband and other members of his family and thereafter she lodged a complaint against her husband and his family members under Section 498-A of IPC. But, she admitted that, she has not disclosed any act of this petitioner in the said complaint at that particular point of time, but for that, she has given her explanation stating that, her husband may show favour to her; and with that fond of hope, she has not disclosed all those things in the complaint. But, subsequently, on 20.08.2019, they all went to Alpha Garden Apartment, where the husband of the complainant was residing in order to enter into a compromise. At that time, this petitioner called her inside the house with an ill-intention. But, she presumed that he might have felt sorry for the acts committed by him and therefore he wanted to seek apology of her and therefore, she went inside the house, but, at that time also he made attempts to touch her private parts and also requested her to do sexual favour etc. then, she slapped him and came out of the house, and thereafter went to the Police Station. It is also stated that, near the Police Station itself, the petitioner called the 2nd petitioner and threatened the complainant and others with dire consequences of killing them etc. On the basis of the above said allegations, the police have started investigation in the matter.
4. Accused No.2-Sathyanarayana has approached the Court of XLV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Court for grant of Anticipatory Bail in Crl. MIsc. 8246/2019 and that Court vide order dated 27.09.2019. has granted bail to him on certain conditions.
5. Looking to the nature of allegations and the facts of the case, some stale incidents have also been surfaced in the year 2019, though the earlier incidents happened prior to 2015, which indicates that for a period of more than four years the acts of the petitioner/accused have not been disclosed by the complainant to anybody. Even in the year 2015, when all the allegations have been made against her husband and the complainant was not residing with her husband and she started living in her parents house, she has not disclosed the same to her parents. This shows that, she was also not in the habit of disclosing any of the factual aspects, even about this petitioner, in the earlier complaint registered for the offence under Section 498- A Cr.PC. Therefore, it creates a serious doubt at this stage that, whether the said incidents were happened or not, and if any such incidents are happened, the same have to be proved before the trial Court during full- dressed trial.
6. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, the parties have already compromised the matter and the complainant is contemplating to withdraw the petition after disposal of the divorce petition filed between herself and her husband under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
7. In the above facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail with certain conditions. Hence, the following,-
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner (A1)-Rajaramalal shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 484/2019 of K.R.Puram Police Station, Bengaluru City, registered against him for the aforesaid offences, now pending on the file of the 10th Addl. CMM, Mayohall, Bengaluru, subject to the following conditions:-
i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within Ten days from the date of receipt of a certified 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 like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation, and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bengaluru District without prior permission of the Court, till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months whichever is earlier.
v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a week ie, on every Sunday between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of two months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*