Karnataka High Court
Shameed Raj M Nadaf vs State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4066/2014
BETWEEN:
Shameed Raj M Nadaf,
S/o. Mohinuddin Jamalsab Nadaf,
Aged 28 years,
Occ: Working at TCS as
Researcher R & D,
Whitefield,
Bangalore City,
Permanent R/o. Chikkalingadahalli,
Tq & Dist: Haveri,
Pin-581 110. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri. C.H. Jadhav, Sr. Adv. for
Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, Adv.)
AND:
State of Karnataka,
By High Grounds Police Station,
Bangalore City,
Bangalore,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
City Civil Court Building,
Bangalore-560 001. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri. B.J.Eswarappa, HCGP)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr. No.179/2014 of High Grounds P.S., Bangalore City,
for the offences P/U/S 498A, 506, 504, 120B, 201, 376
and 420 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 506, 498A, 504, 120B, 201, 376, 420 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No.179/2014.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that accused Nos.2 to 6 have been already granted with anticipatory bail. The petitioner is a 3 Software Engineer and the complainant has also completed her B.E. and is admitted to MBA course. Materials also shows that complainant was in touch with the petitioner over phone calls and thereafter, petitioner was assuring to marry her. At Belgaum, the parents of the petitioner met the parents of the complainant regarding the marriage proposal between the complainant and the petitioner. Though there were some misunderstanding between the petitioner and the complainant, but subsequently they were resolved in the presence of elders and marriage was also performed on 3.6.2014. But the complainant made the allegations against the petitioner that when the marriage proposals were going on and when she came from Belgaum to Bangalore, on 13.5.2014, petitioner booked a room in Golden Land Mark Hotel and took the complainant against her will to the said hotel and there he has committed forcibly sexual intercourse on her. Further allegations are that again on 15.5.2014 evening at 6.30 p.m. petitioner took the complainant to Grand Inn Hotel 4 at Anandrao Circle and there also he has committed forcibly sexual intercourse on her. Complaint averments also shows that petitioner was stating that his parents are demanding Rs.10 lakhs as dowry, but he will convince them and marry her.. On such promise and taking advantage of the situation, he took the complainant to the hotels and thereby, he has committed forcibly sexual intercourse on her. The conditions in the document produced in the case i.e., the consent deed entered into between the complainant and the petitioner shows that they have decided not to take dowry amount for the said marriage. The said document is signed by the complainant on 3.6.2014 itself, which shows that false allegations are made against the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He has further submitted that though the first alleged forcible sexual intercourse has taken place on 13.5.2014 but the complaint has been lodged in this case after a period of more than one month. This itself prima facie shows that false implication of the petitioner 5 in the case. Since from the date of arrest petitioner is in custody, hence by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2003)4 Supreme Court Cases 46 to the relevant paragraphs 21 and 23 of the said judgments and also the decision of the Kerala High Court rendered on 2.12.2013 in Crl.M.C.No.3622/2013.
4. As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments has submitted that the allegations in the complaint clearly shows that prior to the marriage and on the assurance that he is going to marry the complainant, the petitioner has forcibly and against the will of the complainant took her to the hotels on different dates and has committed forcibly sexual intercourse on her. He has also submitted that even the statement of witnesses supports the case of the prosecution that petitioner has committed the alleged 6 offences on the complainant. As the offences alleged are serious offences, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, order of the lower Court on the bail application and other materials placed on record by the petitioner along with the petition so also, the decisions and the principles enunciated in the said decisions relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.
6. In the complaint it is alleged that complainant came in contact with the petitioner in the beginning over phone call and thereafter, there was acquaintance between them and the marriage proposal was also made by the petitioner that he is going to marry her and he insisted her to go to Belgaum to participate in the talks and accordingly, she had been to Belgaum. There the parents of the petitioner went to the house of the 7 complainant at Belgaum, had talks with the parents of the complainant. But further allegations in the complaint shows that after attending the said function at Belgaum she came to Bangalore and by that time, the petitioner had already booked the hotel and forcibly took her to the hotel and there he committed forcibly sexual intercourse on her. But looking to the complaint averments, it is not one time that the petitioner alleged to have committed such forcible sexual intercourse, he used to have forcible intercourse with her on the false pretext of marrying her. But the documents produced in the case shows that marriage between the complainant and the petitioner was performed on 3.6.2014. There is also copy of the consent deed entered into between them which is on the stamp paper. On page No.2 of the said document there is a signature of the petitioner as well as the complainant. As per the said document there is no allegation of any sort against the petitioner by the complainant.
8
7. As per condition Nos.1 to 5 the couples are stated to have decided not to take dowry amount in connection with their marriage. It is also mentioned that there were some misunderstandings between the couples which were solved by the elders. The said consent deed is subsequent to the alleged dates of forcible sexual intercourse on her. Apart from that the complainant is highly educated woman and aged above 20 years as on the date of the alleged incident. When it is her case that on 13.5.2014 there was a forcibly sexual intercourse on her, she was expected to immediately lodge the complaint against the petitioner. But the materials on record shows that complaint was lodged after a period of one month within which date it is alleged that many times petitioner had forcible sexual intercourse on the complainant.
8. I have also perused the decisions relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Looking to all these materials on record, at this stage, prima facie it 9 shows that even if there is any such sexual intercourse between the petitioner and the complainant, it is consensual in nature. Therefore, petitioner has made out a case to enlarge him on bail. Further, the offences alleged are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
9. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 506, 498A, 504, 120B, 201, 376, 420 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No.179/2014, subject to following conditions:-
(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and furnish one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of concerned Court.
(ii) Petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.10
(iii) Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp