IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7273/2017 AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7274/2017 IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7273/2017 Between:
Manjunatha, S/o Poojara Ramappa, Age 21 years, Agriculturist, R/o Kagalagere Village, B. Durga Hobli, Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District -577 201. (By Sri. S.B. Pavin, Adv.) And The State of Karnataka By Chitradurga Women Police, Chitradurga.
By State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karanataka, Bengaluru- 560 001.
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP) ...Petitioner ...Respondent This Crl.P is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.58/2017 of Women Police Station, Chitradurga District for the offence p/u/s 354C, 506, 509, 376, 420 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.66(E) of Information and Technology Act, 2000.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7274/2017 Between:
Nagaraja, S/o Rangappa, 19 years, Agriculture, R/o Kagalagere Village, B.Durga Hobli, Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District -577 201. (By Sri. S.B. Pavin, Adv.) And The State of Karnataka By Chitradurga Women Police, Chitradurga.
By State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karanataka, Bengaluru- 560 001.
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP) ...Petitioner ...Respondent This Crl.P is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.58/2017 of Women Police Station, Chitradurga District for the offence p/u/s 354(C), 506, 509, 376, 420 r/w.34 of IPC and Sec. 66(E) of Information and Technology Act, 2000.
These Criminal Petitions coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Since these two petitions are in respect of same crime number and since common questions of law and facts are involved in these two petitions, they are taken up together to dispose of them by this common order in order to avoid repetition of factual and legal aspects.
2. The first petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail. The connected petition is filed by accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail for the offences punishable under Sections 354C, 506, 509, 376, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 66 (E) of Information Technology Act, 2000 registered in respondent – Women Police Station, Chitradurga Crime No.58/2017.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in both the petitions, so also, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State in both the petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 drawing the attention of this Court made submission that the contents of the complaint goes to show that the complainant was loving accused No.1 Manjunatha since two years and since three months earlier to filing of the complaint, the complainant and Manjunatha was also having bodily cont`act and involving in sexual act. Learned counsel submitted that even the complaint averments are taken into consideration it goes to show that sexual act under Section 376 of IPC will not attract in the present case. He also made submission that earlier to this incident, the mother of the complainant filed a complaint against the accused No.1–Manjunatha which is registered in Cr.No.173/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 143, 323, 324, 504, 354-B, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC. Learned counsel made submission that Manjunatha–accused No.1 is the relative of the complainant in Cr.No.173/2017 and she wanted to perform the marriage of her daughter with accused No.1. For which, the accused No.1 was not agreed for the same and on 06.06.2017 he married another girl, at that time the mother of the complainant herein asked the accused No.1–Manjunatha, though he has promised to marry her daughter, but he has married another girl. For that accused No.1 answered, it is his choice and accordingly he married.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted because of that reason, complaint came to be registered against accused No.1. It is also his submission that, accused No.1 after obtaining anticipatory bail in the said Cr.No.173/2017, immediately the present complaint has been filed. Hence, he made the submission that apart, looking to the prosecution material they clearly goes to show prima-facie there is a false implication of the present petitioners in committing the alleged offences. Hence, he submitted by imposing reasonable conditions anticipatory bail and as well as regular bail may be granted in respect of accused No.1 and 2.
6. Per contra learned HCGP submitted that looking to the statement of the victim and other materials it makes out a prima-facie case, the accused No.1 is necessary for interrogation in the case and accused No.2 is also not entitled to be released on bail, as the material event is against the accused No.2. Hence, the learned HCGP made submission that both the petitions are liable to be rejected.
7. I have perused the grounds urged in these bail petitions, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record and so also so, the bail order of the Sessions Judge rejecting the bail petitions of the both petitioners.
8. Perusing the complaint averments, the victim is the complainant in this case. It is stated in the complaint that she is aged 22 years and she had love affair with the accused No.1–Manjunatha since two years. It is also stated that three months earlier to filing of this petition, herself and accused No.1 were having bodily contact and both of them involved in the sexual act. This act came to be known by the villagers, then she asked accused No.1 to marry her. Though he gave assurance to marry her, but he failed to do so. The further allegation in the complaint goes to show that on 11.07.2017 accused No.1 took her to a place and there the accused No.2 was also present and accused No.2 dragged her to have the sexual act with him, for which she prays and asked accused No.1 to advice accused No.2.
9. Looking to the copy of the complaint and the FIR in Cr.No.173/2017, earlier to the present incident, mother of the complainant herein who is the complainant in the earlier case. Looking to the complaint averments in respect of earlier incident, the prima-facie case goes to show that as accused No.1 is the relative of the victim as well as complainant, the accused No.1 promised to marry the complainant, but he married another girl, for which quarrel took place between them. Thereafter a case was registered against the accused No.1 and others in Cr.No.173/2017. The accused No.1 and other family members obtained anticipatory bail in the said crime number. Immediately the present complaint came to be filed. So for as the sexual act alleged to have been taken place between the complainant and accused No.1 is concerned, there is no mention that it is against her will and it is with her consent. The petitioners contended that they are innocent of the alleged offences and they have produced the earlier complaint filed against the accused No.1. On perusal of these materials on record, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners can be granted with bail.
10. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.1 in Crl.P.No.7273/2017 on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 354 (c), 506, 509, 376, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent women police station Chitradurga Crime No.58/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner-accused No.1 has to execute personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and has to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner-accused No.1 shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner-accused No.1 has to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for.
iv. Petitioner-accused No.1 has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
The Petitioner/accused No.2 in Crl.P.7274/2017 is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 354 (c), 506, 509, 376, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent women police station Chitradurga Crime No.58/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner-accused No.2 has to execute personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and has to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner-accused No.2 shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner–accused No.2 has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE MR