Karnataka High Court
Kiran Raj N vs State Of Karnataka on 29 July, 2021
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4246 OF 2021
C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5292 OF 2021
IN CRL.P.4246/2021
BETWEEN
KIRAN RAJ N
S/O NAGARAJU N V
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
C/AT RENTED HOUSE OF RANGANATHA
VISHVESHWARA LAYOUT
8TH CROSS,
ULLAL UPANAGAR KENGERI
BANGALORE CITY-560 060
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.BASAVARAJU T, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE CITY
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
PUBLIC PROSECUTORS OFFICE,
AT HIGH COURT BUILDING
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AMBEDKAR VEEDI
2
AT BANGALORE-560001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.ROHIT B. J., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN CR.NO.20/2021 (C.C.NO.8335/2021) OF
WHITEFIELD P.S., BANGLAORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
370, 388, 452, 392 AND 506 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 4 AND
5 OF I.T.P ACT.
IN CRL.P.NO.5292/2021
BETWEEN
SMT BHASWATHI DATTA @ MONA
ALIAS ANITHA
W/O KIRAN RAJ
AGED 26 YEARS
C/AT RENTED HOUSE OF RANGANATHA
VISHVESHWARA LAYOUT 8TH CROSS
ULLAL UPANAGAR, KENGERI
BANGALORE CITY - 560 060
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.BASAVARAJU T, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE CITY
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
PUBLIC PROSECUTORS OFFICE,
AT HIGH COURT BUILDING
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AMBEDKAR VEEDI
3
AT BANGALORE-560001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.ROHIT B. J., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN CR.NO.20/2021 (C.C.NO.8335/2021) OF
WHITEFIELD P.S., BANGLAORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
370, 388, 452, 392 AND 506 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 4 AND
5 OF I.T.P ACT.
THESE PETITIONS COMING FOR ORDERS ON THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Criminal Petition No.4246/2021 is filed by accused No.2 and Criminal Petition No.5292/2021 is filed by accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Crime No.20/2021 registered by Whitefield Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 370, 384, 392 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ITP Act').
4
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondent- State and perused the material on record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint dated 21.01.2021 of one Ramakrishna Nemani filed before the Whitefield Police Station, Bengaluru alleging that on 20.01.2021, between 8.30 p.m to 8.45 p.m., when he was going in his car to his Apartment, one old lady and one middle aged lady obtained a lift from his Car. On the way to his Home, the middle aged lady, who sat next to the seat of the driver, took obscene photo by removing her T-shirt, extracted money from the complainant stating that she will file a rape and prostitution case against him and also demanded Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant. After registration of the case by the Police, during the investigation, the Police arrested the petitioners on 5 28.01.2021. The applications filed before this Court came to be dismissed on 25.03.2021 in Criminal Petition No.1727/2021 and Criminal Petition No.1719/2021. Hence, petitioners are before this Court under changed circumstances. Investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Police have already dropped accused Nos.3 and 4 from the charge sheet. Accused No.5 has made a twist during the investigation stage and later, accused No.5 was dropped as accused and made as victim - CW-5. The accused are in custody for more than six months. Petitioners are permanent resident of Bengaluru and are ready and willing to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Accused No.2 has given birth to a female child and is aged about 1 ½ years. In order to 6 feed the child, her presence is required. Hence, they have filed the present petitions.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP has seriously objected the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. On perusal of the material on record, admittedly, the complainant has filed a complaint stating that the victim and the other accused boarded his vehicle for taking lift. Further, investigation reveals that the complainant booked a call girl through mobile phone with accused Nos.1 and 2 and CW-5 is said to be sent by them. After taking the photographs, they extracted the money from the complainant to the tune of Rs.94,000/-and also snatched the gold chain. Later during the investigation, it revealed that the chain is not a gold chain but is a rolled gold and further investigation revealed that the complainant himself 7 booked the call girl for the purpose of enjoyment and taking advantage of sending a girl to the house of the complainant, accused Nos.1 and 2 said to have extracted the money.
7. The investigation is already completed and charge sheet has been filed. Accused are in custody for more than six months. At the time of the arrest, accused No.2-lady was having 1½ year old girl baby. Looking into the said aspects, I am of the view that the petitioners have made an additional ground for enlarging them on bail.
8. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Both the criminal petitions are allowed.
ii) The trial Court is directed to release petitioners on bail subject to the following conditions:8
a) Petitioners shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
b) Petitioners strictly shall not indulge in similar offences.
c) Petitioners shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
d) Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
e) Petitioner-accused No.1 shall mark his attendance before the respondent-
Police on second day of every month for a period of six months or till the commencement of the trial whichever is earlier.
9If any of the conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move the application for cancellation of bail.
SD/-
JUDGE Mds.