Karnataka High Court
Prajwal Revanna vs State By Cid Police on 22 November, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 19.09.2024
Pronounced on : 22.11.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6409 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
PRAJWAL REVANNA
S/O H.D.REVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
HOLENARSIPURA TALUK,
KASABA HOBLI,
PADUVALAHIPPE,
HASSAN PADUALAHIPPE,
KARNATAKA - 573 211.
ALSO AT:
83, "SHIVASMITHA",
RANOJI RAO ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRABHULING K.NAVADGI, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI ARUN G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE BY CID POLICE
BENGALURU - 560 001.
(INVESTIGATED BY
2
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM
CID, BENGALURU)
REPRESENTED BY
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU.
... RESPONDENT
(BY PROF. RAVI VARMA KUMAR, SPL.PP A/W SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, SPL.PP ) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON BAIL IN THE EVNET OF HIS ARREST BY SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM CID BENGALURU BAIL IN CR.NO.20/2024 OF CID POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/S/U 376(2)(n), 506, 354-A(1)(ii), 354(B), 354(C) OF IPC AND SEC.66E OF IT ACT 2008 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XLII ACMM AT BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 19.09.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., for it having been turned down by order dated 12-06-2024 passed by the LXXXI 3 Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in Criminal Miscellaneous No.4868 of 2024 arising out of Crime No.20 of 2024.
2. Heard Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Prof. Ravi Varma Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
A crime comes to be registered on 01-05-2024 in Crime No.20 of 2024 by the complainant for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 506, 354A(1)(ii), 354B and 354C of the IPC and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2008. The complainant alleges that she is a resident of Hemavathinagar, Hassan City and was a member of the Zilla Panchayat from Adagur constituency between 2016-2021. As an elected representative it is her case that she was in contact with the local MLA and MP and their subordinates for various works throughout, but particularly in the year 2021, the narration in the complaint is that she had approached the petitioner to get an admission in B.C.M. Hostel to 4 one of the girls whom she knew. However, she could not meet him on that particular day and a day later she goes to meet the petitioner in his quarters, which is said to be as per the instructions of the petitioner's subordinates. When she visited the quarters of the petitioner, she was asked to go to the first floor and after visitors left, the petitioner is said to have called her into his room and pulled her hands despite her resistance. He started to misbehave by making advances and further threatened that her husband would also to be taught a lesson. She was forced to undress and when she tried to raise her voice, it was also put down by threats that he has angun with him and if the complainant were to shout she and her husband would face dire consequences. It is further alleged that the petitioner raped her and recorded such acts in his mobile. The video being present in his mobile phone, continuous threats meted out to the complainant for sexual favour on blackmail of divulging the video.
4. The complainant then is said to have mentally distressed due to repeated sexual assault committed on her by the petitioner. She did not complain. But, when video began the circulation and 5 when she came to know about formation of Special Investigating Team, she decides to file a formal complaint. The formal complaint emerges on 01-05-2024 which becomes a crime in Crime No.20 of 2024. The petitioner was not available for investigation for more than 30 days after the registration crime, not only in this crime but in three other crimes that were registered against him. Then a look out circular was generated against the petitioner and he was taken into custody on 31-05-2024 for investigation close to a month after registration of the crime. The petitioner then, files an application before the concerned Court seeking anticipatory bail in Criminal Miscellaneous No.4868 of 2024. The said application comes to be rejected in terms of the order dated 12-06-2024. The rejection has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
5. The learned senior counsel Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi appearing for the petitioner would contend that neither the petitioner has done the act alleged in the complaint nor has he committed any of the offences that are alleged. The first informant and the petitioner were in good terms throughout, as both of them were people's representatives. Even in the election campaign for 6 the parliamentary elections, the petitioner is sitting right next to the complainant. The learned senior counsel would submit that this would clearly demonstrate innocence of the petitioner or consensual acts on the part of the petitioner and the complainant. It is his submission that he was shocked to see the videos being circulated and the complaint being registered against him by the first informant in Crime No.20 of 2024. He would further submit that the police after investigation have now filed a charge sheet in crime No.20 of 2024 before the concerned Court.
6. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor Prof. Ravi Verma Kumar would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the case at hand is no better than the cases that have been argued - two of them for anticipatory bail and one of them for regular bail. The offence is the one punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. It is a heinous offence. There are four cases registered against the petitioner based upon the complaints registered by the respective victims. They are in Crime Nos. 107, 2, 3 and 20 of 2024, all for identical offences. The allegation herein is that the petitioner calls the first informant to the room despite protests, 7 directs her to undress, make her sit on the bed, commits sexual assault and records the sexual assault in a mobile phone. She was not allowed to raise her voice as she was put in grave fear. Therefore, the application seeking anticipatory bail should be rejected.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The position of the petitioner is that he was a sitting MP of the constitution and was again a candidate from Hassan constituency for the then ensuing Parliamentary Election. Just before the date of election, complaints emerge, one of which becomes a crime in Crime No.20 of 2024 which is the subject matter of the present petition. This Court in Criminal Petition No.9581 of 2024 answering a petition filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail, for identical offences, has rejected the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of its order dated 21-10-2024. 8 The offences therein were the ones punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(2)(k), 354A, 354B, 354C, 506 of the IPC and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2008. In the case at hand, the offences alleged are Sections 376(2)(n), 506, 354A(1)(ii), 354B and 354C of the IPC and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2008. Except Section 376(2)(k) all other offences in the said case are the same.
9. Now it becomes necessary to notice the complaint in the case at hand. It reads as follows:
"ರವ ೆ,
ಎ. . . . ಐ ಾಗೂ ಮುಖ ಸರು
ೇಷ ತ ಾ ತಂಡ
.ಐ. . ೆಂಗಳ"ರು
ಇಂದ,
XXXXX &ೋಂXXXXXX
44 ವಷ', ಒಕ*+ಗ ಜ-ಾಂಗ
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
.ಾನ 0ೆ,
-ಾನು 1ೕಲ*ಂಡ 3ಾಸದ+4 ನಮ5 ಸಂ6ಾರ7ೊಂ8 ೆ 9ಾಸ9ಾ:ದು; ಾಸನ <ೆ4 ಪಂ>ಾ?@ಯ+4 2016-2021 ರವ0ೆ ೆ ಅಡಗೂರು CೇತD <ಾ4 ಪಂ>ಾ?@ ಸದಸ 0ಾ: 9
ಆF*Gಾ: 6ೇ9ೆ ಸ+4 7ೆ;ೕ-ೆ. -ಾನು ಪಂ>ಾ?@ ಸದಸ 0ಾ:ದ; ಂದ 6ಾವ'ಜ ಕರ &ೆಲಸ .ಾ &ೊಡುವHದ&ೆ* ಎಂ.ಎI.ಎ.ಎಂ. . ಅ-ೇಕ ಸ&ಾ' ಕJೇ ಗK ೆ &ೆಲವH ಅಥ9ಾ ವಗ'ದವ ೆ MೕN .ಾ ಸಲು ಎಂ.ಎI.ಎ ಎಂ. ರವರನುO PೇQ .ಾಡಲು ಆ ಾ ೆR ಅವರ ಬK ೋಗು@T7ೆ;. ಒಂದು 8ನ 2021 ರ+4 ನನO CೇತD 9ಾ Tಯ U. .ಎಂ. *** &ಾ<ೇV 7ಾ W' ಯರ ಮುಂ8ನ ಭ ಷ &ಾ*: ಾ6ೆYI ೕZ &ೊ ಸುವHದನುO ಎಂ. . ಆದಂತಹ ಪDಜ\I 0ೇವಣ^ ರವರ ಹ@Tರ ನಂ@ .ಾ &ೊಂಡು ಅವರನುO PೇQ .ಾ 7ೆ;ನು. ಆಗ ಅವರು ತುತು' ೋಗು@Tದ; ಸಂzÀ¨Àsðದ+4ದು;, -ಾ3ೆ ಬ O ಅಂತ ೇKದರು. ಎಂ. . &ಾ\_ಾD ೆ ಮರು8ನ -ಾನು ಅವರನುO PೇQ .ಾಡುವHದPÉÌ ಅವರ ಾಸನದ ಎಂ. . ಕJೇ ಾಗೂ ಎಂ. . &ಾ\ಟDa ಮತುT (ಮ-ೆ) ೋ7ಾಗ ಅವರ ಎಂ. . &ಾ\ಟDಸನ &ೆ¼À:ನ ಾIನ+4 ತುಂಬ ಜನ ಇದ;ರು. ಅ+4ರುವ ಬbಂ8ಗಳc ೕವH 1ೕ<ೆ ೋ: ಅ+4 ಬbಂ8ಗಳc ಮd3ೆಯರು ಇ7ಾ;0ೆ ಅಂತ ೇK ನನOನು ಅವರ ಎಂ. &ಾ\ಟDa 1ೕ<ೆ ಮಹ ೆ ಕಳcd ದರು. ಪDಜ\I 0ೇವಣ^ &ೆಳ ೆ 6ಾವ'ಜ ಕರನುO .ಾತ-ಾ &ೊಂಡು 1ೕ<ೆ ಾI ಹ@Tರ ಬಂದು ನನ:ಂತ ಮುಂ>ೆ ೋ:
ಕೂ@ದ;ಂತಹ ಮd3ೆಯನುO eದಲು .ಾತ-ಾ ಕಳcd ದರು.
&ೊ-ೆ ೆ -ಾನು ಒಬb3ೆ ಉKದು&ೊಂgೆ. ಆಗ ಅವರು ನನO£ÀÄß 1ೕ<ೆ ಅವರ ರೂಂ ಒಳಗgೆ ಕ0ೆದರು. -ಾನು ಒಳUÉ ೋ7ೆ ಆಗ ಅವರು ನನO &ೈ d ದು ಎ3ೆದು&ೊಂಡು ರೂಂನ ಾ:ಲನುO ಾi&ೊಂ ರು9ಾಗ -ಾನು ೇಡ Gಾ&ೆ ಾ:ಲು ಾಕು@T8;ೕ0ಾ ಎಂದು &ೇK7ೆ. ಆಗ ಅವರು ಏನು ಆಗಲ4 ಅಂತ ೇK ನನOನುO ೆl 1ೕ<ೆ ಕೂ &ೊಂಡರು 1ೕ<ೆ ಅವರು ನO ಗಂಡ 8+ೕm ತುಂ ಾ nೋರು ಸ\ಲo ಕ 1 .ಾತ-ಾಡ+&ೆ* ೇಳc ಇಲ4 ಅಂದ0ೆ ಅವನನುO Uಡಲ4 ಅಂತ ೇK ಅವ ಂದ ನನOಮ5 ಅಮ5ನ ಎಂ.ಎI.ಎ. Q&ೇZ ತMoೕಯುT, ನO ಗಂಡ 0ಾಜiೕಯ ೆ3ೆಯ ೇಕು ಅಂದ0ೆ -ಾನು ೇKದ ಾ ೆ .ಾಡು ಎಂದು ೇಳcpಾT ನನOನುO ಮಂಚದ 1ೕ<ೆ ಮಲ: ಬ_ೆY Uಚುr ಅಂತ ೇKದರು. -ಾನು Uಚrಲ4 ಅಂತ ೇK7ೆ ಅವರು Uಚುr ಎಂದು ಒpಾTಯ .ಾ ದರು. -ಾನು ಕೂಗುpೆTೕ-ೆ ಎಂದು ೇKದ;&ೆ* ನನO ಹ@Tರ ಗN ಇ7ೆ -ಾನು ೇKದ ಾ ೆ &ೇಳ+ಲ4 ಅಂದ0ೆ ನO ಗಂಡನನುO ನOನುO UಡುವH8ಲ4 ಮು: UಡುತT-ೆ ಎಂದು ೆದ &ೆ ಾi ನನOನುO ಬಲpಾ*ರ .ಾಡಲು ಪDಯತOಪಟYನು. ಆಗ -ಾನು ಎsೆYೕ U &ೊಂಡರು Uಡ7ೇ U:Gಾ: ನನO &ೈಯನುO d ದು&ೊಂಡರು. ಕೂಗ ೇಡ ಅಂತ ೆದ &ೆ ಾiದರು. ಆಗ
-ಾನು ಭಯಪ_ೆY ಆಗ ಅವರು ಅವರ e ೈI pೆ ೆದರು. ಆ ಭಯ8ಂದ -ಾನು ೆದ ಅವರು ೇKದ ಾ ೆ &ೇK7ೆ ಾಗೂ ಅವರು ೇKದಂpೆ ಅವರ nೊpೆ ನgೆದು&ೊಂgೆ.
dೕ ೆ ಅವರು ನನOನುO ಬಲpಾ*ರ .ಾಡುpಾT <ೈಂ:ಕ 7ೌಜ'ನ ªÀiÁr ಅದನುO ಅವರ e ೈIನ+4 uೕ v@Dೕಕರಣ .ಾ &ೊಂಡರು. ಆ 1ೕ<ೆ ೕ-ೇ-ಾದರೂ ಈ >ಾರವನುO ಾ? UಟY0ೆ ನO uೕವನುO 6ಾವ'ಜ ಕ ೆ UಡುpೆTೕ-ೆ. ಈ uೕದ+4 ನನO ಮುಖ ಇಲ4. ನO7ೇ .ಾನ ಮGಾ'7ೆ ೋ ೋದು ಎಂದು ೇK ನನOನುO ಭಯಪ ದರು. ಈ 10 uೕವನುO dೕ ೆ ಇಟುY&ೊಂ ರುpೆTೕ-ೆ -ಾನು ಕ0ೆ7ಾಗ<ೆ<ಾ4 ೕನು ನನO nೊpೆ ಮಲಗಲು ಬರ ೇಕು. ಇಲ4 ಅಂದ0ೆ uೕವನುO ಬdರಂಗಪ ಸುpೆTೕ-ೆ ಎಂದು ಾ4x 1ೕI .ಾ ದನು. nೊpೆUÉ ನO ಗಂಡ ನನO nೊpೆಯ+4 ಇರುpಾT-ೆ. ಅವನನುO ಮು:ಸುpೆTೕ-ೆ ಎಂದು ನನOನುO ೆದ ಭಯಪ ಸುpಾT-ೆ. ಪ7ೇ ಪ7ೇ ನನ ೆ MೕN .ಾ uೕ &ಾI .ಾ ನO 7ೇಹವನುO ನಗO9ಾ: pೋ ಸು ಬ_ೆY Uಚುr ಎಂದು ಪ7ೇ ಪ7ೇ MೕN .ಾ .ಾನ ಕ9ಾ:
dಂ6ೆ ೕ ** ಬಲವಂತ9ಾ: ಬಲpಾ*ರ .ಾ ನನO 1ೕ<ೆ <ೈಂ:ಕ 7ೌಜ'ನ .ಾ ರುpಾT-ೆ.
ಆದ; ಂದ ಾಸನದ ಎಂ. ಆದ ಪDಜ\I 0ೇವಣ^ನು ನನOನುO ತನO ಅy&ಾರವನುO ದುರುಪuೕಗಪ &ೊಂಡು &ೊ<ೆ ೆದ &ೆ ಾi ಭಯಪ ಬಲವಂತ9ಾ: ಬಲpಾ*ರ .ಾಡುpಾT <ೈಂ:ಕ 7ೌಜ'ನ .ಾ ಅದನುO uೕ v@Dೕಕರಣ .ಾ &ೊಂಡು 6ಾವ'ಜ ಕ9ಾ: ಬdರಂಗ .ಾ ನನO .ಾನ ಮGಾ'7ೆ ಾಳc .ಾಡುpೆTೕ-ೆಂದು ಾ4x 1ೕI .ಾ ೆದ ಪ7ೇ ಪ7ೇ ನನO 1ೕ<ೆ <ೈಂ:ಕ 7ೌಜ'ನ ನgೆ uೕವನುO ಪD>ಾರ .ಾ ನನO ಮGಾ'7ೆ ಾಳc .ಾ ರುವವವರ 1ೕ<ೆ &ಾನೂನು ಕDಮ &ೈ ೊಳzಲು &ೋರುpೆTೕ-ೆ ಇಂ@ ತಮ5 ಾ\ , ಸd/-"
The aforesaid complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.20 of 2024 on the afore-quoted offences. Section 376(2)(n) reads as follows:
"376. Punishment for rape.--(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever,--
... ... ...
11
(n) commits rape repeatedly on the same
woman".
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC punishes a person who indulges in repeatedly raping the same woman. The other offences are the ones punishable under Sections 354A(1)(ii), 354B and 354C of the IPC. They read as follows:
"354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine."
"354-A. Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment.--(1) A man committing any of the following acts--
(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
(iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.
(2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) 12 shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."
"354-B. Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe.--Any man who assaults or uses criminal force to any woman or abets such act with the intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
"354-C. Voyeurism.--Any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.--For the purpose of this section, "private act" includes an act of watching carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy and where the victim's genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory; or the victim is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public.13
Explanation 2.--Where the victim consents to the capture of the images or any act, but not to their dissemination to third persons and where such image or act is disseminated, such dissemination shall be considered an offence under this section."
(Emphasis supplied) Section 354 of the IPC deals with assault or criminal force upon a woman with an intention to outrage her modesty. Section 354-A deals with sexual harassment; Section 354-B deals with assault or use of criminal force to disrobe a woman and Section 354-C deals with voyeurism. It becomes necessary to notice whether the ingredients of the complaint would meet the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. In the considered view of the Court it does.
10. The complaint is that the petitioner who is in a position of dominance, has prima facie indulged in commission of these acts. Therefore, clause (n) of sub-section (2) of Section 376 is prima facie met in the case at hand. The remaining offences are under Sections 354-A(1)(ii), 354-B and 354-C of the IPC. The complaint would prima facie indicate all the three offences being met. The petitioner disrobing the woman; trying to outrage her modesty as 14 per the videos and indulging in sexual harassment, meet the ingredients of voyeurism as well, as obtaining under Section 354-C of the IPC.
11. It is a case where the petitioner is allegedly involved in offences that can lead to punishment beyond 20 years and stretch upto life imprisonment. Though all those would become a matter of trial, whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail in the subject petition is what is required to be considered. The Apex Court has laid down certain parameters for grant of bail in such cases. The Apex Court in the case of PRASANTA KUMAR SARKAR v. ASHIS CHATTERJEE1, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
9. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
1
(2010) 14 SCC 496 15
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
[See State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21 :
2005 SCC (Cri) 1960 (2)] (SCC p. 31, para 18), Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi [(2001) 4 SCC 280 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 674] , and Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] .]"
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court lays 8 postulates for considering an application for grant of bail, be it regular or anticipatory. They are being whether there is prima facie reason to believe that the accused has committed the offence; nature and gravity of the accusation;
severity of punishment; likelihood of the offence being repeated;16
witnesses being threatened or influenced; and justice being thwarted. In the considered view of the Court, all the postulates would run against the petitioner for denial of bail. There are reasons to believe albeit, prima facie, that the petitioner has committed the offence. Danger of the accused absconding or fleeing on bail is writ large, as the petitioner did not co-operate with investigation, sitting in Germany for more than 35 days after the registration of the crime. Therefore, the risk of him being fleeing the country looms large. The allegation is that most of the accused in the entire episode of crime have allegedly indulged in threatening the witnesses. It cannot be ruled out in the case of the petitioner, if he is released on bail.
12. It is apposite to notice another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BHAGWAN SINGH v. DILIP KUMAR2, wherein it is held as follows:
".... .... ....
24. The fact that accused Deepak is the son of sitting MLA would disclose the domineering influence he would wield not only in delaying the proceedings but also in pressurizing the witnesses to either resile 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059 17 from their statement given during the course of investigation or pose threat to them from deposing against accused on their failure to act according to his dictates or induce them to testify as per his dictates or to help the defence of the accused.
25. The prosecutrix has made allegations against the concerned accused-respondents and it becomes amply clear from the plain reading of the complaint as well as the testimony of the prosecutrix that accused persons had indeed participated in the gang rape. She also states that she was threatened that if she were to inform any family member of the alleged rape incident, they would make the video of rape to go viral. During the course of investigation of the FIR registered for gang rape, it was found that entries maintained at Hotel Samleti Palace, relevant to the date of incident was specifically missing; the CCTV cameras at the Hotel though found, the CCTV footage of the date of incident was not available; Vivek had called the prosecutrix several times and had exchanged number of messages; Vivek and Netram were in regular touch on phone and after the incident, accused Deepak was dropped from the charge- sheet only on the ground that call details of his mobile provided to the investigating authorities did not disclose about his presence at the scene of the incident on that particular date and as such the charge-sheet was filed only against Vivek and Netram. The prosecutrix had also named Deepak having participated in the incident of gang rape in her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 of the Cr. P.C. and had also named him in the FIR. It is only on the strength of the application filed by complaint under Section 190-193 of Cr. P.C., the trial court took cognizance against Deepak for the offences punishable under Section 376D and section 5 of POCSO Act and said order has reached finality, as already noticed hereinabove."
(Emphasis supplied) The High Court had granted bail. It is upturned by the Apex Court. While so doing, the Apex Court observes that the accused was the 18 son of a sitting MLA and it would disclose domineering influence over the witnesses or pressurizing the witnesses. The allegations were grave and the facts were goading. Therefore, the accused who was enlarged on bail, is sent back to the prison. The findings of the Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgment, would prima facie become applicable to the facts of the case at hand, as the petitioner has prima facie indulged in the maraud of modesty of women.
13. Certain observations of the Apex Court in the case of SHYAM NARAIN v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)3, would also become apposite to notice here. They read as follows:
".... .... ....
19. The aforesaid authorities deal with
sentencing in general. As is seen, various concepts, namely, gravity of the offence, manner of its execution, impact on the society, repercussions on the victim and proportionality of punishment have been emphasised upon. In the case at hand, we are concerned with the justification of life imprisonment in a case of rape committed on an eight year old girl, helpless and vulnerable and, in a way, hapless. The victim was both physically and psychologically vulnerable. It is worthy to note that any kind of sexual assault has always been viewed with seriousness and sensitivity by this Court.
... ... ... 3 (2013) 7 SCC 77 19
22. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [(1996) 2 SCC 384 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 316 : AIR 1996 SC 1393] this Court stated with anguish that crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. The learned Judges proceeded further to state that it is an irony that while we are celebrating women's rights in all spheres, we show little or no concern for her honour. It is a sad reflection of the attitude of indifference of the society towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of sex crimes. Thereafter, the Court observed the effect of rape on a victim with anguish:
(SCC p. 403, para 21)
21. ... We must remember that a rapist not only violates the victim's privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a physical assault--
it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. The Apex Court, a little earlier, in the case of JUGENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH4 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
49. Rape or an attempt to rape is a crime not against an individual but a crime which destroys the basic equilibrium of the social atmosphere. The consequential death is more horrendous. It is to be kept in mind that an offence against the body of a woman lowers her dignity and mars her reputation. It is said that one's physical frame is his or her temple. No one has any right of encroachment. An attempt for the momentary pleasure of the accused has caused the death of a child and had a 4 (2012) 6 SCC 297 20 devastating effect on her family and, in the ultimate eventuate, on the collective at large. When a family suffers in such a manner, the society as a whole is compelled to suffer as it creates an incurable dent in the fabric of the social milieu. The cry of the collective has to be answered and respected and that is what exactly the High Court has done by converting the decision of acquittal to that of conviction and imposed the sentence as per law."
(Emphasis supplied) If what is considered by the Apex Court to be impact of a rape or impact of outraging the modesty of the woman, the offence against the petitioner is undoubtedly grave.
15. It is also necessary to notice as to whether the petitioner has the propensity to repeat the offence, once he is released on bail. It now becomes germane to notice the factum of institution of suit by the petitioner. One year prior to registration of complaint, the petitioner had instituted a suit and the prayer sought in the suit was for grant of relief of injunction. Order on I.A.No.I in O.S.No.3394 of 2023 reads as follows:
"Defendants, their agents, officers or any other persons acting though or claiming right under the defendants are hereby restrained by an order of ex- parte accused-interim temporary injunction from telecasting or broadcasting or printing or publishing or circulating or posting or accommodating the posting or 21 transmitting or web hosting or sharing or expressing any defamatory articles, news, images, photograph, video footage and/or pictures involving or referring to plaintiff negatively impacting the plaintiff and committing any act or intentional omission raising negative image, character assassination or creating sarcastic views and leveling baseless and unverified allegations against the plaintiff and from discussing his character in any manner including showing live/still images or footages or pictures involving or referring to the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever, till the date of next hearing.
Plaintiff is hereby directed to comply Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC.
Issue warrant of T.I., Notice of I.A. No. I and SS to defendants R/by 27-07-2023."
(Emphasis supplied) The order was prohibition of circulating, posting, sharing, expressing any defamatory articles, news, images, video footage or pictures involving the petitioner. Therefore, it is not that the petitioner was for the first time alleged to have got into such acts. The apprehension of circulation of all the aforesaid acts loomed large prior to registration of the crime. The case projected would not come within the parameters of what the Apex Court has held in the judgments quoted hereinabove, for grant of anticipatory bail. The judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel for petitioner would not lend any assistance for consideration of grant of 22 anticipatory bail to the petitioner. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any warrant to allow the petition and grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
16. The petition, therefore, deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.
It is made clear that the observations made in the course of order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail and the same will not bind or influence any other pending proceeding.
Sd/-
(M. NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Bkp CT:MJ