Karnataka High Court
Prajwal Revanna vs State By Holenarsipura Town Police ... on 21 October, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 19.09.2024
Pronounced on : 21.10.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6401 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
PRAJWAL REVANNA
S/O H.D.REVANNA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
HOLENARSIPURA TALUK
KASABA HOBLI, PADUVALAHIPPE
HASSAN PADUVALAHIPPE
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:
STATE BY
HOLENARASIPURA TOWN POLICE STATION
(INVESTIGATION BY S.I.T
2
C.I.D BENGALURU)
BENGALURU - 560 001
(REPRESENTED BY
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY PROF.RAVI VARMA KUMAR, SPL.PP A/W
SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, SPL.PP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO
RELEASE THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.2 ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.107/2024 OF HOLENARASIPURA POLICE STATION FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 354, 354A, 354B, 354D, 376, 376(K), 506 AND 509
OF IPC AND SEC. 66E OF I.T. ACT, 2000, WHICH IS INVESTIGATED
BY SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM CID, BENGALURU, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE XLII ADDL. CMM, AT BENGALURU, (INITIALLY FIR
WAS REGISTERED) AND PENDING BEFORE THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT, HOLENARASIPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT.
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:-
3
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking enlargement on
regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., for it having been
turned down by the LXXXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru in Criminal Miscellaneous No.5509 of 2024 arising out of
a crime in Crime No.107 of 2024 registered for offences punishable
under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 354D, 376, 376K, 506, 509 of the
IPC and under Section 66E of the Information Technology Act,
2008.
2. Heard Sri Prabhuling K.Navadgi, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Prof Ravi Varma Kumar, learned
senior counsel and Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
It is the case of the prosecution that a complaint comes to be
registered on 28-04-2024 that accused No.1/H.D. Revanna gets the
victim the post of a cook in B.C.M Ladies Hostel who claims to be a
4
distant relative of the wife of accused No.1 Bhavani Revanna. She
joined the job of cook in the said hostel in the year 2015. After
about 4 years it is said that she was requested to come to work in
the house of accused No.1/H.D. Revanna for the purpose of
marriage celebration of his elder son Sooraj Revanna. She has often
visited the house for helping the accused in the household chores.
After about 4 months of her initial visit, accused No.1 insisted her
to go to his room and is alleged to have made attempts to touch
the victim inappropriately. Insofar as the petitioner/accused No.2 is
concerned, it is the allegation that he used to touch her from the
back inappropriately and on several occasions, the victim is said to
have protested the actions of both accused No.1 and accused No.2.
It is the further case of the victim that she was told by other
workers in the house that she would face a false theft case against
her in the event she would not cooperate with all the needs of
accused No.2.
4. It is the further case that accused No.2 used to call her and
her daughter through video call and tried to provoke her daughter
by speaking about the aspects of sex. Continuous harassment and
5
ill-treatment led the victim leaving the job 4 years prior to
registration of the complaint. Accused No.1, on the score that she
has left the job, ensured that she would be harassed by the local
Police and the officials. It is the case of the victim that she later
comes to know about certain sexual explicit videos in the media
being circulated. This becomes the fulcrum of the complaint
registered on 28-04-2024 which becomes a crime in Crime No.107
of 2024. Pursuant to registration of crime, the State Government
constitutes a Special Investigation Team to take over the case and
conduct investigation. After commencement of investigation, the
Investigating Agency places a request before the jurisdictional
Magistrate to add certain offences. Initially when the crime in
Crime No.107 of 2024 was registered, it was registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 354A, 354D 506 and 509 of the
IPC and after the permission was so granted by the jurisdictional
Magistrate on 02-05-2024 and 13-05-2024, the offences now
alleged are the ones afore-quoted.
5. The petitioner was not available for investigation. A look
out circular and a blue corner notice comes to be issued against the
6
petitioner. The petitioner then comes back to India on 31-05-2024
and is taken into custody and remains in custody since then. The
petitioner applies for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C., before the Special Court which comes to be rejected on
26-06-2024, after which the present petition is preferred seeking
enlargement on bail.
6. The learned senior counsel Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi
appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the
complaint is hit by delay. The alleged incident, even according to
the complaint, has taken place four years ago. There is no
explanation for the delay in registering the crime. Initially the
crime was registered for offences punishable under the afore-
quoted sections. Later the offence of rape is added and since
circulation of explicit mail is alleged, the offence under Information
Technology Act is roped in. The learned senior counsel would seek
to place reliance upon plethora of judgments to contend that in the
light of gross delay in registering the crime, the petitioner should at
least be entitled to be enlarged on bail pending regular trial.
7
7. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor Prof. Ravi
Varma Kumar takes this Court through the complaint, the
statements made by the victim and the charge sheet that is now
filed before the concerned Court. He would seek to contend that the
petitioner was in the position of domination and if the victim would
complain at that point in time, she was always under the fear of
being harassed or threatened. This is exactly what the complainant
narrates in the complaint. The allegations are the ones punishable
for repeated rape being in a dominating position. If such people
are left to come out on being enlarged on regular bail, there would
be tendency of repeating the same offence and threatening the
witnesses as accused Nos.1, 2 and 8 in the crime are all persons in
powerful positions. Therefore, it is his submission that there is no
warrant to grant bail.
8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would join
issue to contend that accused No.1/H.D. Revanna and accused
No.8/Smt. Bhavani Revanna have already been enlarged on bail.
Therefore, the petitioner, more so in the light of the charge sheet
8
now being filed, should be enlarged on bail, as he would not be
required for any custodial interrogation.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
10. The afore-narrated facts at this juncture lie in a narrow
compass, as the issue is whether the petitioner should be enlarged
on bail. The entire issue which becomes a crime in Crime No.107 of
2024 gets triggered on the complaint being registered on
28-04-2024. The complaint so registered reads as follows:
"gÀªÀjUÉ,
oÁuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ,
ºÉƼɣÀgÀ¹Ã¥ÀÄgÀ £ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ,
ºÉƼɣÀgÀ¹Ã¥ÀÄgÀ.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,
«µÀAiÀÄ: ºÉƼɣÀgÀ¹Ã¥ÀÄgÀ ±Á¸ÀPÀ ºÉZï.r.gÉêÀtÚ ºÁUÀÆ ºÁ¸À£À ¯ÉÆÃPÀ¸À¨Ás PÉëÃvÀæzÀ
¸ÀA¸ÀzÀ ¥Àædé¯ï gÉêÀtÚ CªÀjAzÀ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ zËdð£Àå ºÁUÀÆ fêÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ
EgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀÄ.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉƼɣÀgÀ¹Ã¥ÀÄgÀ mË£ï 17£Éà ªÁqïð,
£ÀgÀ¹AºÀ £ÁAiÀÄPÀ £ÀUÀgÀ, E°è PÀÄlÄA§ ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 10 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ ªÁ¸À«gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
£À£Àß ¥Àw F ªÀÄÄAZÉ ±Á¸ÀPÀ ºÉZï.r.gÉêÀtÚ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvéÀzÀ £ÁUÀ¯Á¥ÀÄgÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ ºÁ°£À
qÉÃjAiÀÄ°è PÀÆ° PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. ºÉZï.r.gÉêÀtÚ CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ©¹JA ¯ÉÃr¸ï
9
ºÁ¸ÉÖ¯ï£À°è CrUÉ PÉ®¸À PÉÆr¹zÀÝgÀÄ. £ÀUÉ M§â ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀ½gÀÄvÁÛ¼É. DPÉ
J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹ªÀgÉUÉ «zÁå¨sÁå¸À ªÀiÁr, ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁV E§âgÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÉÆA¢UÉ £ÀªÉÆäA¢UÉ
ªÁ¸À«gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀªÀÄUÉ ºÉZï.r.gÉêÀtÚ ¥Àwß ²æêÀÄw ¨sÀªÁ¤ gÉêÀtÚ£ÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÉÆÃzÀgÀvÉÛ
ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ, £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀzÀ ¸ÀA§A¢üAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ¸ÀA§AzsÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É 2013 gÀ°è
£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ wÃjPÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÉZï.r.gÉêÀtÚ£ÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ PÉ®¸À PÉÆr¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉý ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ
§gÀĪÀAvÉ DUÁUÀ ºÉüÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ 2015 £Éà E¹éAiÀÄ°è CªÀgÀ ªÀiÁw£ÀAvÉ CªÀgÀ ºÁ¸É֮߰è
PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÉ. CzÁV 4 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÀ ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà ¥ÀÄvÀæ ¸ÀÆgÀeï gÉêÀtÚ
ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ PÀgɹPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. C°è ªÀÄÆgÀƪÀgÉ
ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À PÁ® PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÉÝ. CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀ 4 wAUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ
ºÉZï.r.gÉêÀtÚ CªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä PÉÆoÀrUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ, ¨ÁgÀªÀÄä AiÀiÁPÉ PɼÀUÉ ºÉÆÃVÃAiÀÄ JAzÀÄ,
£Á£ÉãÀÆ ªÀiÁqÀ®è ¨Á JAzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀß PÉÆoÀrUÉ DºÁ餸ÀÄwÛzÀÄæ. ºÉZï.r.gÉêÀtÚ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è
PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÝ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀgÀÄ ¥Àædé¯ï gÉêÀtÚ §UÉÎ ºÀĵÁgÁVgÀĪÀAvÉ JZÀÑjPÉ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÝÀ gÄÀ .
CªÀ£ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀ£ÀÆß ©nÖ®è, eÉÆÃ¥Á£ÀªÁVgÀÄ, PÉlÖzÁV £ÉÆÃqÀÄvÁÛ£É, PÉÆoÀrUÉ ¨Á JAzÀÄ
PÀgÉAiÀÄÄvÁÛ£É ºÀĵÁgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ DUÁUÀ ºÉüÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ, D ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è 6 d£À ºÉtÄÚªÀÄPÀ̼ÄÀ
PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzɪÀÅ. ºÉtäPÀ̼ÀÄ PÀÆqÀ ¥Àædé¯ï gÉêÀtÚ §AzÁUÀ ¨sÀAiÀĪÁUÀÄvÉÛ CAvÁ DvÀAPÀ
ºÉÆgÀºÁPÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. ºÉZï.r.gÉêÀtÚ vÀªÀÄä ¥Àwß ¨sÀªÁ¤AiÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è®èzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è
¸ÉÆÖÃgïgÀƪÀiï£À°è PÉÊ »rzÀÄ J¼ÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÄæ, ºÀtÄÚ PÉÆqÀĪÀ £É¥ÀzÀ°è ªÉÄÊ ªÀÄÄlÄÖwÛzÀÄæ. MªÉÆäªÄÉ ä
£À£Àß ¹ÃgÉAiÀÄ ¦£ï QvÀÄÛ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ zËdð£Àå £ÀqɸÀÄwÛzÀÄæ. E£ÀÄß ¥Àædé¯ï gÉêÀtÚ £Á£ÀÄ CqÀÄUÉ
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÁÝUÀ »A¢¤AzÀ §AzÀÄ ªÉÄÊ ªÀÄÄlÄÖvÁÛ ºÉÆmÉÖ ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è fUÀÄlÄwÛzÀÄæ. vÀ£ÀUÉ JuÉÚ
ºÀZÀÄѪÀAvÉ ±ÉÆèsÁgÀ£ÀÄß PÀ½¸ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ£À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ºÉý
PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ºÉzÀjPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ NqÀÄwÛzÉ. EzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀUÀ¼ÄÀ
£À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É C£ÉÃPÀ ¨Áj £ÀqÉ¢ªÉ. £Á£ÀÄ F «µÀAiÀĪÀ£Àß ºÉÆgÀUÉ AiÀiÁjUÁzÀÆæ ºÉüÉÆÃt
CAzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÉÝ. DzÉæ ºÉýPÉÆAqÀgÉ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É PÀ¼ÀAPÀ ºÉÆj¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É PÀ¼ÀîvÀ£ÀzÀ
DgÉÆÃ¥À ºÉÆj¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ EvÁå¢AiÀiÁV C°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀݪÀgÀÄ ºÉzÀjPÉ ºÀÄnÖ¹zÀÄæ. gÉêÀtÚ
¯ÉÊAVPÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀUÀ¼ÀÄ EµÀÖPÉÌà ¤Aw®è. £À£Àß ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è D
£ÀA§gïUÉ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ¨Áj ªÀiÁªÀÄÆ° PÀgÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄæ. D ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è £À£ßÀ
ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄwÛzÀÄæ. CzÉà CªÀPÁ±À §¼À¹PÉÆAqÀÄ D£ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ¸À® «rAiÉÆÃ
PÁ¯ï ªÀiÁr £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À eÉÆvÉ C¸À¨Àås ¸ÀA¨sÁµÀuÉ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥ÀæZÉÆâ¸À®Ä AiÀÄw߸ÀÄwÛzÀÄæ. DzÉæ
CzÀjAzÀ ºÉzÀjPÉÆAqÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ D £ÀA§gÀ£Àß ¨ÁèPï ªÀiÁrzÀ¼ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ F J¯Áè ¯ÉÊAVPÀ
QgÀÄPÀļÀ, MvÀÛqÀUÀ½AzÁV 4 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£É PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£Àß ©lÄÖ §AzÉ. EzÀjAzÀ
PÉÆÃ¥ÀUÉÆAqÀ CªÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ªÁ¸À«zÀÝ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¥ÉưøÀgÀ£Àß PÀ½¹ D±ÀæAiÀÄ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ°è
ªÀÄAdÆgÁVzÀÝ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀģɬÄAzÀ DZÉ ºÁQ¹ QgÀÄPÀļÀ PÉÆlÖgÀÄ. ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ J¯Áè
ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀÆqÀ £ÀªÀÄUÉ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £ÀªÀÄä£Àß ªÀģɬÄAzÀ
ºÉÆgÀºÁQzÀÝPÉÌ ºÉƼɣÀgÀ¹Ã¥ÀÄgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ
¹éÃPÀj¸À°®è. £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁªÀÅ ºÁ¸À£À f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀÆ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆmÉÖªÀÅ. £ÀªÀÄUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ ¹UÀ°®è.
C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ ºÉÆÃV ºÉZï.r.gÉêÀtÚ ºÁUÀÆ ¨sÀªÁ¤AiÀĪÀgÀ PÁ°UÉ ©zÀÄÝ PÀëªÉÄ PÉý, DUÀ
¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀªÀĸÉåUÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¹ÀUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ.
EwÛÃZÉUÉ ºÁ¸À£À f¯ÉèAiÀiÁzÀåAvÀ ¥Àædé¯ï gÉêÀtÚ CªÀgÀ £ÀqɹzÁÝgÉ J£À߯ÁzÀ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ
zËdð£ÀåzÀ «rAiÉÆÃUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÁmïì D¥ï£À°è ºÀjzÁrzÀÄÝ, £À£ÀUÀÆ PÀÆqÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ «rAiÉÆÃUÀ¼ÄÀ
§A¢gÀÄvÀÛªÉ. CzÀgÀ°è M§â ªÀÄ»¼ÉAiÀÄÄ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ ZÀ£ÀßgÁAiÀÄ¥ÀlÖt gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ CªÀgÀ
UÀ¤ßPÀqÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ vÉÆÃlzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ. D ªÀÄ»¼ÉAiÉÆA¢UÀÆ ¥Àædé¯ï
10
gÉêÀtÚ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ zËdð£Àå £ÀqɹgÀĪÀ «rAiÉÆà £ÉÆÃr £À£ÀUÉ ¨sÀAiÀÄ, DvÀAPÀ ºÁUÀÆ
DWÁvÀªÁ¬ÄvÀÄ. D ªÀÄ»¼ÉAiÀÄ «rAiÉÆà £ÉÆÃr £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è UÀAqÀ DvÀAPÀPÉÌ M¼ÀUÁV
£À£Àß ²Ã®ªÀ£Àß ±ÀAQ¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, ¤£Àß «rAiÉÆà DZÉUÉ §AzÀgÉ £ÀªÀÄä UÀwAiÉÄãÀÄ? ¤Ã£ÀÄ PÀÆqÀ
¥Àædé¯ï gÉêÀtÚ¤AzÀ zËdåð£ÀPÉÌ M¼ÀUÁV¢ÝÃAiÀi EvÁå¢AiÀiÁV ¥Àæ²ß¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, EzÀjAzÀ £À£ÀUÉ
ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV »A¸ÀAiÀiÁUÀÄwÛzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ CAxÁ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr®è, JAzÀÄ £À£Àß ¥ÀwUÉ ºÉüÀÄvÀÛ¯ÉÃ
EzÉÝãÉ. DzÉæ CªÀjUÉ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÉAiÉÄà EzÉ. ¥Àædé¯ï gÉêÀtÚ CªÀjAzÀ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ
ªÀÄ»¼ÉAiÀÄgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÀqÉzÀ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ zËdð£ÀåUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ¥ÀªÀgï n« ¸ÀĢݪÁ»¤ PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÄÀ
¥Àæ¸ÁgÀªÁVzÀÝ£Àß £ÉÆÃr, £À£ÀUÁzÀ C£ÁåAiÀÄ, zËdð£Àå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÝ
ªÀÄ»¼ÉAiÀÄgÀÄ C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É ºÁUÀÆ QgÀÄPÀļÀPÉÌ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÁvÀäPÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ
¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä zsÉÊAiÀÄð ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀĢݪÁ»¤UÉ §AzÀÄ ºÉýPÉ ¤ÃrzÉ. ºÉZï.r.gÉêÀtÚ,
¥Àædé¯ï gÉêÀtÚ CªÀjAzÀ DVgÀĪÀ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ zËdð£Àå, QgÀÄPÀļÀ, ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É ¸ÀA§AzsÀ
¸ÀéEZÉÒ¬ÄAzÀ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV §ºÀ¼À £ÉÆA¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
£ÀªÀÄUÉ fêÀ ¨sÀAiÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ zÀAiÀĪÀiÁr ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¨sÀzÀævÉ PÀ°à¹ ºÁUÀÆ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£ßÀ
ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ £ÀªÀÄä EZÉÑUÉ «gÀÄzÀݪÁV ¯ÉÊAVPÀ zËdð£ÀåªÉ¸ÀVzÀ ºÉZï.r.gÉêÀtÚ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Àædé¯ï
gÉêÀtÚ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ, £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è £À£Àß ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĸÀÜgÀ
eÉÆvÉ EzÀÄÝPÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀgÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ¢AzÀ F UÀtQÃPÀÈvÀ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹zÀÄÝ, £Á£ÀÄ RÄzÀÄÝ
oÁuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁV zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä fêÀ ¨sÀAiÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ £À£Àß ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĸÀÜjAzÀ ºÁ¸À£À
f¯Áè ¥ÉưøÀjUÉ PÀgÉ ªÀÄr¹ ¤ªÀÄäUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ PÀgɹPÉÆAqÀÄ, ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÀÄPÁÌV
ªÀÄ£À« ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÉÝãÉ. ºÁUÀÆ £Á£ÀÄ EgÀĪÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ UË¥ÀåvÉ PÁ¥ÁqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃjzÉ.
zsÀ£ÀåªÁzÀUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ,
¸ÀܼÀ: ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹,
¢£ÁAPÀ: 28-04-2024 ¸À»/-
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX."
The narration in the complaint is that she had been sexually
harassed four years ago. When sexual explicit videos of the
petitioner appeared along with others and on looking at those
videos the victim registers the complaint as she was also harassed
and sexually explicit videos were allegedly recorded. Pursuant to
the complaint so registered, as observed above, a crime in Crime
11
No.107 of 2024 comes about, initially not for the offences of rape
but only for sexual harassment. Later permission was sought from
the hands of the learned Magistrate to include offence of rape which
comes to be permitted and the present offences are as quoted
hereinabove.
11. The petitioner at the relevant point in time i.e., when the
crime was registered and the Special Investigation Team was
constituted had fled the country. Therefore, a look out circular and
a blue corner notice was issued. After 32 days of registration of
crime, the petitioner comes back to the shores of this nation and
then participates in the investigation. During the pendency of
investigation, he prefers an application before the concerned Court
seeking enlargement on bail. The concerned Court in terms of its
order dated 26-06-2024 rejects the application seeking bail. The
reasons so rendered for rejection of bail, insofar as they are
relevant read as follows:
"19. .. .. .. Admittedly, the entire case revolves
around collection of materials in digital form which the Petitioner
was allegedly recorded at the time of committing the alleged
offence and the same is required to be recovered. Even
12
otherwise the other aspect which requires to be considered is
whether the statement of the victim under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C., can be given a probative value for considering the
existence of prima facie case. In this regard reliance is placed
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in the case
of Indresh Kumar v. State of U.P. and another which is as
follows:
"The High Court has ignored the materials on record
including incriminating statements of witnesses under
Section 164/161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. may not be
admissible in evidence, but are relevant in considering the
prima facie case against an accused in an application for
grant of bail in case of grave offence.
The High Court has granted the respondent-accused
bail without the heinous nature of the allegations against
him, the gravity of the offence alleged and severity of the
punishment in the event of ultimate conviction, only
because a co-accused had also been granted bail by the
High Court".
20. The aforesaid judgment clearly indicates that at the
time of considering the bail application the Court can look into
the statements recorded by the investigating agency to
ascertain prima facie case. In short, it is noticed that the
victim/Prosecutrix had lodged written information against the
petitioner herein and it is corroborated by statement recorded
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C which would indicate the existence
of a prima facie case. That apart, I have also bestowed my
anxious reading to the authorities relied upon by the
prosecution. In the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case
of Prashanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashish Chatterjee (2010)
14 SCC 496, has laid down the criteria and parameters for
considering bail application which can be culled out as follows:
"It is well settled that, among other
circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind
while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or
reasonable ground to believe that the
accused had committed the offence;
13
(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.
21. The first and foremost aspect as per the aforesaid
judgment which is required to be established is to ascertain
whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe
that the accused had committed the offence alleged. In the
instant case lodging of written information by the victim would
indicate that sexual abuse incident had taken place. Time and
again the Hon'ble Apex Court has cautioned the trial courts that
in the matters pertaining to sexual act, the court shall not insist
upon corroborating materials. At this juncture, the court has
perused the statement of the victim/prosecutrix which was
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The sole criteria at this
juncture is to appreciate whether the said testimony/ statement
inspires confidence. That apart the court is also required to
consider the nature and gravity of accusation and also the
severity of the punishment. In the instant case, the provision
which has been invoked against the Petitioner herein is under
Section 376(k) of IPC wherein if a person in a position of control
or dominance over a woman, commits rape on such woman; the
same would be held punishable and also under Section 66E of
I.T. Act, 2000. Both these aspects would indicate commission of
heinous offence by the petitioner herein.
14
23. When the entire factual aspects of the case are
applied to the case on hand, it indicates that the prosecution
has made out a strong prima facie case against the Petitioner
herein. That apart, the materials also indicate that the victim
had given her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., which
could be looked into for the purpose of ascertaining existence of
prima facie case. Last but not the least, the prosecution has also
contended that if the Petitioner is admitted to bail, there is
chance of flight risk and has aptly described and held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court there are materials indicating a strong prima
facie case against him. The court has also taken into account of
the statement which has been recorded by the Investigating
Agency till now as per the CD files. The statements would
indicate the overt act pointed out against the Petitioner herein.
Since the investigation is not yet completed, the allegations
levelled against the Petitioner is serious and grave in nature,
which is to be viewed seriously, it would indicate that the
Petitioner is not entitled for a relief of regular bail. Accordingly,
the petition is devoid of merits and I, answer point No.1 in the
Negative.
23. Point No.2: In view of my answer to Point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The bail application filed U/Sec.439 of Cr.P.C., by the Petitioner - Sri Prajwal Revanna is hereby rejected."
The reason inter alia was that investigation was yet to get completed and the allegations against the petitioners were serious and grave in nature. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., was perused and the application for enlargement of the petitioner on bail comes to be rejected.
1512. Now charge sheet is filed against the petitioner. Whether this would enure to the benefit of the petitioner for grant of regular bail is to be considered. The statement of the victim which is relevant reads as follows:
".... .... ....
ಸು ಾರು 2020 ೇ ಇಸ ಯ ಭ ಾ ಅಕ ಾ ಾಗಲೂ ನಮ ನು ಮ ೆ ಸ ಚ ೊ ಸುವ
"ೆಲಸ"ೆ ಕ#ೆದು"ೊಂಡು 'ೋಗುವ 'ಾ ೆ ಒಂದು )ವಸ *ೆಂಗಳ,-ನ ಬಸವನಗು/ಯ ಮ ೆ ೆ ನನ ನು ಮತು1 XXXX ರವರನು ಸಂ3ೆ ಕ#ೆದು"ೊಂಡು 'ೋದರು. ಅಗ ಪ5ಜ 7 ಮ ೆಯ ಇರ ಲ. ಾನು, XXXX ಮತು1 ಭ ಾ ಅಕ 'ಾಗೂ ಅಡು ೆ "ೆಲಸದ #ಾ"ೇಶನು ಇದ9ನು. ಭ ಾ ಅಕ ನಮ ಗ ೆ ಾ:ೆ *ೆ ೆ; ಎದು9 ಮ ೆಯ=ಾ ಸ ಚ ಾ/ ಎಂದು #ಾ>5?ೕ > @ದ9ರು. ಮರು )ವಸ ಭ ಾ ಅಕ AಾBCಂD ೆ 'ೋE ಬರುವಷGರ ಮ ೆ "ೆಲಸ ಾ/ ಮುEಸುವಂHೆ > @ *ೆ ೆ; ಸು ಾರು 10.30 ಗಂIೆ ೆ 'ೋEದ9ರು. ಭ ಾ ಅಕ ಮ ೆJಂದ 'ೋಗು>1ದ9ಂHೆ ಾವKಗಳL ಮ ೆಯನು ಒಂMೊಂದು ಕNೆ ಸ ಚ ೊ ಸ HೊಡEMೆವK. ಾನು Oದಲ ೇ ಮಹ/ಯ ಪ5ಜ 7 ರೂಂ QೕR ಾಡು>1Mಾ9ಗ, ಲSTಮ ಾನು ಇ ೊ ಂದು ಮಹ/ QೕR ಾNಾ1 ಇjÛ , ೕನು ಇ QೕR ಾಡು, ಅಕ ಬ#ೋಷGರ "ೆಲಸ ಮುEUೋಣ ಅಂತ ಎರಡ ೇ ಮಹ/ ೆ 'ೋದು5. ಾನು ರೂಂ QೕR ಾ/1Mಾ9ಗ. ಪ5ಜ 7 WೕRನ ಾತ ಾ/"ೊಂಡು ಏ"ಾಏQೕ ರೂY ೆ ಬಂದು5. ಅವರು ಬಂ)ದ9ನು ೋ/ ಾನು 'ೊರಗNೆ 'ೋ ೋಣ ಅಂತ *ಾEಲ ಹತ5 'ೋಗ*ೇ"ಾMೆ5, ಪ5ಜ 7 ಇಷುG )ವಸ ನ ಂದ ತCZ@"ೊಂಡು >ರು ಾಡು>1Mೆ9. ಎ[ೆ\ ಹಚ ಲು *ಾ ಎಂದ#ೆ ಸಬೂಬು 'ೇಳL>1Mೆ9. ಈಗ ಒಂ^ ಾE @Q )9 ಾ? ನಮ ಅಮ AಾCಂD ೆ 'ೋEMಾ#ೆ. ಇವತು1 ಾನು 'ೇ ದ 'ಾ ೆ "ೇಳ)ದ9#ೆ ನ ಕ_ೆ ಮುEಸುHೆ1ೕ ೆ ಅಂತ 'ೇ *ಾEಲು ಮು` `ಲಕ 'ಾQದ. ಆಗ ಾನು *ೇಡ ಅಣ\, ತbಾZಯು1 ನನ cಟುG c/, ನನ ೆ ಏನೂ ಾಡ*ೇ/ ಎಂದು ಅಂಗ=ಾ` *ೇ/ದರೂ ಪ5ಜ 7 ನನ ಾತು "ೇಳMೇ, ನನ ನು ಮಂಚದ eೕ=ೆ ಎ:ೆದು"ೊಂಡು ನನ ರ "ೆಯನು ಹ-ದು, @ೕ#ೆಯನು ಎ:ೆMಾ/ ಾನು ಅವನನು ನೂಕಲು ಎfೆG ಪ5ಯತ ಪಟGರೂ ಅವನು ಏ ಾಗಲ ಅಂತ ನನ eೕ=ೆ ಬಲHಾ ರ ಾE #ೇg ಾ/ದನು.
... .... ....
ಇದ-ಂದ ನನ ಮನ@h ೆ ಬಹಳ *ೇ3ಾ#ಾಯು1. O ೆ O ೆ ಅಂMೆ5 ಎಂ.C. ಎ=ೆSRಗೂ ಮುಂiೆ ಪ5ಜ 7 ರವರು *ೇ#ೆ 'ೆಂಗಸರ 3ೊHೆ ೆ ಅಸಹB ಾE ನNೊ >1ದು5 ಅ ೊ ಬ ೆ; ಪವj ^ ನೂBk ನ ಬರು>1ತು1. ಅeೕ=ೆ ನನ ಪ-ಚಯಸlರು, ೕನು ಆ ಮ ೆಯ "ೆಲಸ ಾNಾ1 ಇದ9=ಾè, ಏ ದು ಂ ೇ ಾದು5 ೊHಾ1 ಅಂತ /mೕಗಳನು Hೋ-ದು5, ಆಗ ನಮ ೌಡು5. ಏ ೇ XXXX ೕನು ಆ 16 ಮ ೆಯ ಅಷುG ವಷo ಇದ9=ಾ ಇ ೆ=ಾ ನ ೆ ೊ>1=ಾ ? ಏ ಾದರೂ ೊ>1zÉæ ಮು` qÀÝA ೆ ನನ ಹ>1ರ 'ೇಳL ಅಂತ 'ೇ ದು5, ಆಗ ನನ ಮಗಳL 'ೌದು ಕಣಮ ಾವK ನ 3ೊHೆಯ ಇ>o , ೕ ೇನೂ ಭಯ ಪಡ*ೇಡ ನಮ ಹತ5 'ೇ¼ÉÆÌà ಅಂದಳL. ಾನು ನನ ಗಂಡ ಮತು1 ಮಗಳ 3ೊHೆ #ೇವಣ\ Uಾ'ೇಬು5 'ಾಗೂ ಪ5ಜ 7 ನನಗೂ eೖ-"ೈ ಮು^G Qರುಕುಳ "ೊಟGªÉæ ಅಂತ 'ೇ¼ÉÝ. ಆಗ ಮಗಳL ಮತು1 ಗಂಡ ಕಂbೇq "ೊNೊಣ ಅಂತ 'ೇ ದು5, ಾವK ಾತ ಾ/"ೊಂಡು ಕಂbೇq "ೊNೋMೆ ಸ- ಅಂತ > ದು, 'ೊ:ೆನರ@ೕಪKರದ #ೇವಣ\ Uಾ'ೇಬು5 'ಾಗೂ ಪ5ಜ 7 eೕ=ೆ ಕಂbೇq "ೊIೆ5 ತ ೋ:ಾ1#ೋ ಇ¯ÉÆéà ಅಂತ > ದು *ೆಂಗಳ,- ೆ 'ೋE ಪವj ^. .ಯ 'ೇ:ೆ, ಳಣ ಅಂತ ಅ ೊ ಂಡು *ೆಂಗಳ,- ೆ ಬಂದು ಪವj ^. . #ೇವಣ\ Uಾ'ೇಬು5 'ಾಗೂ ಪ5ಜ 7 eೖ-"ೈ ಮು^G Qರುಕುಳ "ೊಟGªÉæ ಅಂತ ಸಂದಶoನ "ೊné ಆದ#ೆ ಾನು ಎ=ಾ iಾರನು 'ೇ ಲ, ಎ=ಾ iಾರನು 'ೇ )Mೆ5 ನನ ಸಂUಾರ 'ಾ:ಾಗುHೆ1 ಅಂತ 'ೇ ರ ಲ. ನನ ಮಗ ೆ ನಮ ಏ- ಾದ ದ9 bಾವo> ಎಂಬುವರು ಕ#ೆ ಾ/ ಪವj ^. . ಬಂ)ದು9 ೕ ಾ ಅಂತ "ೇ ೕ ೇನು 'ೆದರ*ೇ/, ಮ ೆ ಏ ಾದರೂ ಸ'ಾಯ *ೇQದ9#ೆ "ೇ ಅಂತ 'ೇ ದು5, ಅವ- ೆ ನನ ಮಗಳL ಕಂbೇq "ೊಡ*ೇಕು ೕವK ಬ ಅಂತ bಾವo> ೆ 'ೇ zÀÄè. ನಮ ೆ 'ೊ:ೆನರ@ೕಪKರ W ೕk rಾ[ೆ ೆ 'ೋE ದೂರು ೕಡಲು 'ೆದ-"ೆ ಾದ9-ಂದ ನನ ಮಗಳL 'ೊ:ೆನರ@ೕಪKರ W ೕಸ- ೆ WೕR ಾ/ ನಮ ೆ HೊಂದgÉ DVzÀÝ §UÉÎ w½¹zÀÄè. ಾವK ಒಂದು 'ೋIೆ7ನ ಉ ದು"ೊಂNೆವK. ನಮ ಪ-ಚಯಸl-ಂದ ಒಂದು ಕಂbೇq Iೈg ಾ/@ ಇಟುG"ೊಂ/) , bಾವo> ಕೂಡ ಅ ೆ ಬಂದರು. ಾರ ೇ )ನ 'ೊ:ೆನರ@ೕಪKರ W ೕಸರು ಾ ದ9 ೆ ಬಂದರು. ಾನು Iೈg ಾ/@^Gದ9 ಕಂbೇq ಅನು 'ೊ:ೆನರ@ೕಪKರ W ೕk ರವ- ೆ ೕ/Mೆ. ಆಗ ನನ 3ೊHೆ bಾವo> ಕೂಡ ಇದ9ರು. ಾನು "ೊಟG ಕಂbೇq ಅನು 'ೊ:ೆನರ@ೕಪKರ W ೕk Hೆ ೆದು"ೊಂಡು 'ೋದರು. ಅವರ 3ೊHೆ ಬಂ)ದ9 =ೇ/ W ೕk ನಮ 3ೊHೆ ಇದ9ರು. ಈ )ನ ಾನು bಾವo> ರವರ 3ೊHೆ @.ಐ./. ಆvೕk ೆ ಬಂMೆ. ಬಂದು ನನ ೆ ಏನು ನ/ತು ಅಂತ ಮ ಹತ5 'ೇಳ "ೆ ಭಯ ಆE1ತು1. ಆದ#ೇ ೕವK ಮತು1 "ೌ h ಂD eೕಡಂ Mೈಯo "ೊಟG eೕ=ೆ ನನ eೕ=ೆ ನNೆದ ಎ=ಾ Qರುಕುಳಗಳ ಬ ೆ; ಮುಚು ಮ#ೆ ಇಲMೇ 'ೇ ರುHೆ1ೕ ೆ."
The statement of the victim recorded before the learned Magistrate under Section 164(5) of the Cr.P.C., reads as follows:
"ದಂಡ ಪ5Q5 ಾ ಸಂzHೆಯ ಕಲಂ 164(5) ರ/ಯ Uಾ{ಯ ಸ ತಃ 'ೇ "ೆ (Uಾ{ಯ 'ೇ "ೆಯನು ಾB ಾಲಯದ ಇR "ಾBe#ಾ ಮೂಲಕ ಪNೆಯ=ಾEರುತ1Mೆ. ಆ"ೆಯನು ಪ5} @Mಾಗ Hಾನು ಸ ಇiೆ~Jಂದ 'ೇ "ೆಯನು "ೊಡಲು ಬಂ)Mೆ9ೕ ೆ 'ಾಗೂ 'ೇ "ೆಯನು ೕಡಲು ಾರೂ ಒHಾ1J@ರುವK)ಲ ಎಂದು > @ರುHಾ1#ೆ) 17
1. ಾನು ಮತು1 ನನ ಗಂಡ ಮೂಲತಃ XXXX, eೖಸೂರು •=ೆಯವ#ಾEರುHೆ1ೕªÉ. }5ೕಮ> ಭ ಾ #ೇವಣ\ನವರು ನನ ಗಂಡನ UೋದರHೆ1ಯ ಮಗಳL ಆEರುHಾ1#ೆ. ನನ ೆ ಒಬ€ ಮಗ ಮತು1 ಒಬ€ ಮಗಳL ಇರುHಾ1#ೆ. ನನ ಮಗ ೆ ಮದು ೆ ಾE ಅವಳ ಗಂಡನ 3ೊHೆ ಮಂಡB •=ೆಯ ಾಸ ರುHಾ1: ೆ. ನನ ಮಗ 10 ವಷoಗಳ zಂMೆ >ೕ-'ೋEರುHಾ1 ೆ. ಆಗ ಭ ಾ #ೇವಣ\ನವರು ೕವK ಇಬ€#ೆ ಗಂಡ 'ೆಂಡ> XXXX ಇರುವKದು *ೇಡ, "ೆಲಸ "ೊ/ಸುHೆ1ೕ ೆ ಎಂದು 'ೇ ನನ ನು , ನನ ಗಂಡನನು ಮತು1 ನನ ಾವನನು 'ೊ:ೇನರ@ೕಪKರ"ೆ ಕ#ೆ@"ೊಂ/ರುHಾ1#ೆ. ನನ ಗಂಡ ೆ 'ೊ:ೇನರ@ೕಪKರದ Nೈ-ಯ "ೆಲಸ "ೊ/@ರುHಾ1#ೆ, ನನ ೆ 'ೊ:ೇನರ@ೕಪKರದ c@ಎಂ 'ಾUೆG7 ನ ಅಡು ೆ "ೆಲಸ "ೊ/@ರುHಾ1#ೆ. ಾವK 'ೊ:ೇನರ@ೕಪKರದ *ಾ/ ೆ ಮ ೆ ಾ/"ೊಂಡು ಾಸ Mೆ9ವK. 4 ವಷoಗಳ ನಂತರ ಭ ಾ #ೇವಣ\ನವರು 'ಾUೆG7 ಅಡು ೆ "ೆಲಸದ 3ೊHೆ ೆ ಅವರ ಮ ೆ ಅಡು ೆ "ೆಲಸ ಕೂಡ ಾಡು ಎಂದು ನನ ನು ಅವರ 'ೊ:ೇನರ@ೕಪKರದ ಮ ೆ ೆ ಕ#ೆ@"ೊಂ/ರುHಾ1#ೆ. ನನ "ೆಲಸ ಪ5>)ನ *ೆ ೆ; 6.00 ಗಂIೆ ೆ bಾ5ರಂಭ ಾE, ಮಧB#ಾ>5 12.00 - 1.00 ಗಂIೆ ಾದರೂ ಮುEಯು>1ರ ಲ. ಆ ಸಮಯದ ಅವರು ನನ ೆ ಸ- ಾE ಊಟ, >ಂ/ "ೊಡು>1ರ ಲ, ರಂತರ "ೆಲಸ ಾ/@"ೊಳLƒ>1ದ9ರು. ಮ„ಾBಹ 12.00 ಗಂIೆ ೆ >ಂ/ "ೊಡು>1ದ9ರು, ಸಂ3ೆ 4.00 ಗಂIೆ ೆ ಊಟ "ೊಡು>1ದ9ರು. ಭ ಾ #ೇವಣ\ನವರು ಾ ಾಗಲೂ ನನ ೆ PÉlÖ ¥ÀzÀUÀ½AzÀ ಬಯುB>1ದ9ರು. ಾನು ಅವರ ಮ ೆJಂದ ನಮ ಮ ೆ ೆ 'ೋಗಲು ಒಂದು ಆIೋUÉ ºÉýzÉÝ, £Á£ÀÄ ಆIೋzÀ°è ಓNಾಡುವKದನು ೋ/ ನನ ೆ ಆIೋ iಾಲಕನ 3ೊHೆ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಕ Z@ ನನ ನು ಭ ಾ #ೇವಣ\ನವರು ಅ ಾBಚB ಶಬ9ಗ ಂದ *ೈದು, ಅವ ಾ @ರುHಾ1#ೆ. zೕ ೆ ಅವರು ನನ ೆ Qರುಕುಳ "ೊಡುತ1=ೆ ಇದ9ರು.
2. ಾನು ಈ -ೕ> ಅವರ ಮ ೆಯ "ೆಲಸ ಾಡು>1ರು ಾಗ ಒಂದು )ನ #ೇವಣ\ನವರು ಹಣು\ "ೊಡುHೆ1ೕ ೆ ಎಂದು 'ೇ ನನ ನು UೊGೕj ರೂY ೆ ಕ#ೆ)ರುHಾ1#ೆ. ಾನು UೊGೕj ರೂY ೆ 'ೋMಾಗ ನನ "ೈಯನು z/ದು ಎ:ೆ)ರುHಾ1#ೆ. ಾನು ಅಣ\ ನನ ನು c/, ಎಂದು ನನ "ೈಯನು c/@"ೊಂಡು ಅ ಂದ 'ೊರ^ರುHೆ1ೕ ೆ. ಾನು ಅವರ ಮ ೆಯ "ೆಲಸ ಾಡು>1ರು ಾಗ ಪ5ಜ 7 #ೇವಣ\ನವರು ನನ zಂ) ಂದ ಬಂದು ನನ 'ೊIೆG Eಂಡು>1ದ9ರು ಮತು1 ನನ @ೕ#ೆ Cನ ನು Qತು1'ಾಕುವKದು ಾಡು>1ದ9ರು. ನನ ೆ #ೇವಣ\ ಮತು1 ಪ5ಜ 7 #ೇವಣ\ನವರನು ೋ/ದ#ೆ ಭಯ ಾಗು>1ತು1, ಅವ-ಂದ ತCZ@"ೊಂಡು ಾನು ಮ ೆಯ ಓNಾಡು>1Mೆ9. ಅವರ ಮ ೆಯ "ೆಲಸ ಾಡು>1ದ9 'ೆಣು\ ಮಕ ಳL ಾತ5 ಪ5ಜ 7 #ೇವಣ\ನವ- ೆ eೖ ೆ ಎ[ೆ\ ಹಚ *ೇ"ೆಂದು 'ೇಳL>1ದ9ರು, ಾನು ಆ "ೆಲಸ)ಂದ ಕೂಡ ತCZ@"ೊಳLƒ>1Mೆ9.
3. #ೇವಣ\ನವರ ಬಸವನಗು/ ಮ ೆಯನು ಸ ಚ~ ೊ ಸ*ೇ"ೆಂದು ನನ ನು ಮತು1 ಇ ೊ ಬ€ "ೆಲಸದವರನು ಭ ಾ #ೇವಣ\ನವರು ಕ#ೆದು"ೊಂಡು ಬಂ)ರುHಾ1#ೆ. ಸದ- ಮ ೆಯ *ೆ† ರೂಂ ಅನು ಾನು ಸ ಚ~ ೊ ಸು>1ರ*ೇ"ಾದ#ೆ ಭ ಾ #ೇವಣ\ ಮ ೆಯ ಇರ ಲ, ಅವರು AಾCಂD ೆ ಎಂದು 'ೊರ ೆ 'ೋEದ9ರು. ಆ ಸಮಯದ ಪ5ಜ 7 #ೇವಣ\ನವರು *ೆ† ರೂY ೆ ಬಂದು `ಲಕ 'ಾQರುHಾ1#ೆ, ಾನು `ಲಕ Hೆ ೆJ- ಎಂದು 'ೇ ದರೂ ಕೂಡ `ಲಕವನು Hೆ ೆ)ರುವK)ಲ, ನನ ನು ದೂQ ಮಂಚದ eೕ=ೆ 'ಾQರುHಾ1 ೆ ಮತು1 ಾನು ಧ-@ದ9 @ೕ#ೆ, *ೌ5k ಅನು Qತು1'ಾQರುHಾ1#ೆ ಮತು1 ನನ eೕ=ೆ 18 ಬ=ಾHಾ ರ ಾ/ರುHಾ1#ೆ. ಆ ಸಮಯದ ಆತ ಎಂ.C ಾEದ9. ನನ eೕ=ೆ ಆದ ಬ=ಾHಾ ರದ ಬ ೆ; ಾ- ಾದರೂ 'ೇ ದ#ೆ ನನ ನು ಮತು1 ನನ ಗಂಡನನು "ೆಲಸ)ಂದ Hೆ ೆದು'ಾಕುHೆ1ೕ ೆ ಎಂದು ನನ ನು *ೆದ-@ರುHಾ1 ೆ. ನನ ಮಗಳ eೕ=ೆ ಸಹ ಬ=ಾHಾ ರ ಾಡುHೆ1ೕ ೆ ಎಂದು 'ೆದ-@ರುHಾ1 ೆ. ಾನು 'ೆದ- ಾ-ಗೂ ಈ ಷಯವನು 'ೇ ರುವK)ಲ, 'ಾ ೆ ಅವರ ಮ ೆಯ "ೆಲಸ ಾ/"ೊಂಡು ಇMೆ9.
4. ನಂತರ, ೌ- ಹಬ€ದ ಸಮಯದ ನನ ಮಗಳ ಮ ೆ ೆ 'ೋಗಲು ರ3ೆ "ೇ "ೊಂಡು 'ೋEರುHೆ1ೕ ೆ. ಆಗ ನನ HಾJ ೆ ಹುfಾ-ಲMೆ ಅವರು ಆಸZHೆ5ಯ Mಾಖ=ಾEದ9ರು ಆ "ಾರಣ #ೇವಣ\ನವರ ಮ ೆ ೆ "ೆಲಸ"ೆ 'ೋಗಲು ತಡ ಾEರುತ1Mೆ. ಾನು ಾಪk 'ೊ:ೇನರ@ೕಪKರ"ೆ ಬಂMಾಗ #ೇವಣ\ನವರ ಮ ೆಯ "ೆಲಸ ಾಡು>1ದ9 *ೇ#ೆಯವ- ೆ ಕ#ೆ ಾ/ ಾಪk "ೆಲಸ"ೆ ಾ ಾಗ ಬರುವKದು ಎಂದು "ೇ ರುHೆ1ೕ ೆ. ಆಗ ಅವರು ಭ ಾ ಯವರು ಾಪk ಬಂದ ನಂತರ ಮ ೆ ೆ *ಾ ಎಂದು 'ೇ ರುHಾ1#ೆ. ಭ ಾ ಯವರು 2-3 )ನಗಳ ನಂತರ 'ೊ:ೆನರ@ೕಪKರ"ೆ ಬಂ)ರುHಾ1#ೆ. ಆಗ ನನ ನು ಕ#ೆ@"ೊಂಡು ನನ ೆ ಅ ಾBಚB ಶಬ9ಗ ಂದ *ೈ)ರುHಾ1#ೆ. ಆ ಸಂದಭoದ ನನ ಗಂಡನ ಸಂಬಂ•ಕರನು ಸಹ ಕ#ೆ@"ೊಂ/ದ9ರು. ನನ ಗಂಡ ನನ ಪರ ಾE ಾHಾ/ದ9"ೆ ನನ ಗಂಡನ ಸಂಬಂ•ಕರು ನನ ಗಂಡ ೆ 'ೊNೆ)ರುHಾ1#ೆ. ಾವK ಅ ಇರುವKದು *ೇಡ, PÉ®¸À ©lÄÖ ©qÉÆÃtªÉAzÀÄ ನಮ ಮ ೆ ೆ ಾಪk ಬಂ)ರುHೆ1ೕ ೆ, ಆಗ ಭ ಾ ಯವರು ಾ#ೋ ವBQ1ಗಳನು ಕಳLz@ ನಮ ನು ಮ ೆJಂದ ಆiೆ 'ಾQ ಮ ೆಯ cೕಗ 'ಾQ@ರುHಾ1#ೆ. ಸದ- ಮ ೆ ನನ 'ೆಸ-ನ ಇರುವ ಮ ೆ ಾEರುತ1Mೆ. ಮ ೆJಂದ 'ೊರ 'ಾQದ ನಂತರ ಾವK ಮ ೆಯ ಮುಂMೆ?ೕ ªÉÄnÖ® "ೆಳ ೆ ಮಲEರುHೆ1ೕ ೆ. ಆಗ ನನ ೆ >ೕವ5 ಾE ಾನ@ಕ ಒತ1ಡ ಾE ಾತು ಂತು'ೋEರುತ1Mೆ ಮತು1 ನನ ೆ ¸ÉÆÖçÃPï ಆEರುತ1Mೆ. ಈ ಷಯವನು ಭ ಾ #ೇವಣ\ನವ- ೆ > @Mಾಗ ಅವರು ನಮ ನು " ಮ ದು ಾ ಾಗಲೂ ಇ)9Mೆ9" ಎಂದು 'ೇ ಕಳLz@ರುHಾ1#ೆ. ನಂತರ, ನನ ಮಗಳL ಮತು1 ನನ ಅ ಯ ನನ ನು `QHೆh ಾE eೖಸೂ-ನ 3ೆ ಎk ಎk. ಆಸZHೆ5 ೆ Uೇ-@ರುHಾ1#ೆ. ಎರಡು ಮೂರು >ಂಗಳ ನಂತರ ಾನು ಸ-'ೋEರುHೆ1ೕ ೆ. ನಂತರ, 'ೊ:ೆನರ@ೕಪKರ"ೆ ಾಪk ಬಂದು *ಾ/ ೆ ಮ ೆಯ ನನ ಗಂಡನ 3ೊHೆ ಾಸ ಾEರುHೆ1ೕ ೆ. ನಮ ನು ಆiೆ 'ಾQದ ಮ ೆ ನಮ 'ೆಸ-ನ ದು9, ಆ ಮ ೆಯ Mಾಖ=ಾ>ಗಳನು ಸಹ Hೆ ೆದು"ೊಳƒಲು ಭ ಾ #ೇವಣ\ c^GರುವK)ಲ. ಇMಾದ ನಂತರ ನನ ಗಂಡನನು Nೈ- "ೆಲಸ)ಂದ Hೆ ೆ@'ಾQರುHಾ1#ೆ ಮತು1 ನನ ನು c@ಎಂ 'ಾUೆG7 "ೆಲಸ)ಂದ Hೆ ೆ@'ಾQರುHಾ1#ೆ.
5. zೕEರು ಾಗ ಏC57 2024 ರ #ೇವಣ\ನವರ ಮ ೆಯ "ೆಲಸ ಾಡು>1ದ9 ಮz:ೆಯರ eೕ=ೆ MೌಜoನB ಆEರುತ1Mೆ ಎಂದು ಾಧBಮಗಳ ಸು)9 ಬಂ)ರುತ1Mೆ. ಅದನು ೋ/ ನನಗೂ ಅMೇ
-ೕ> ಆEರುತ1Mೆ ಎಂದು ಾನು ನನ ಗಂಡ ಮತು1 ಮಗ ೆ > @ರುHೆ1ೕ ೆ. ಅವರು ಈ ಬ ೆ; ದೂರನು "ೊಡ=ೇ*ೇ"ೆಂದು ನನ ೆ „ೈಯo ತುಂc ನನ ನು *ೆಂಗಳ,- ೆ ಕ#ೆದು"ೊಂಡು ಬಂ)ರುHಾ1#ೆ, ಾನು ದೂರನು "ೊ^GರುHೆ1ೕ ೆ.19
(W ೕಸರ ಅನುಪ@l>ಯ Uಾ{ಯನು iಾ-ಸ=ಾE Uಾ{ಯು ಾವKMೇ 'ಾಗೂ ಾರMೆ ಒತ1ಡ ಇಲMೆ ಸ ಇiೆ~Jಂದ 'ೇ "ೆಯನು "ೊಡು>1ರುವKMಾE ನನ ೆ ಮನವ-"ೆ ಾEದು9, Uಾ{ಯು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ eೕ=ೆ 'ೇ ದ 'ೇ "ೆಯನು ಸ ಇiೆ~Jಂದ ಾವKMೇ ಒತ1ಡ ಲMೆ 'ೇ ರುವKMಾE ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ದೃ/ಕ-@Mೆ9ೕ ೆ.)"
The videos circulated were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory ('FSL' for short). The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that FSL report is in favour of the victim while certain portions are in favour of the petitioner. The sample speeches found in the videos are opined to be that of the petitioner in Kannada language. The voice samples are analyzed and the opinion of FSL reads as follows:
"
• The facial features of female individual present in image files mentioned above from Sl.No.1 to 3 are similar with respect to facial features of the female individual present in image files of SanDisk ultra SD card and marked as D4. The system generated facial feature comparison reports are enclosed in a softcopy as Annexure-A3.
• The facial features of female individual present in image files mentioned above from Sl.No.1 to 3 are similar with respect to facial features of the female individual present in video file of SanDisk ultra SD card marked as D4. The system generated facial feature comparison reports are enclosed in a softcopy as Annexure-A4.
• The facial features of female individual are not present in image files mentioned above from Sl.No.4 to 17. Hence, comparison of the same is not possible with respect to facial features of female individual present in image/video files of SanDisk ultra SD card marked as D4.
209. The complete image frames (296 Frames) of the video file and enhanced image frames along with system generated reports between 0 to 3 Sec (10 frames) of the alleged video file namely "VID-20200115-WA0019.mp4" present in Samsung mobile phone marked as D1a are enclosed in a softcopy as Annexure-A5.
10. The complete image frames (373 Frames) of the video file and enhanced image frames along with system generated reports between 0 to 2 Sec & 4 to 5 Sec (07 frames) of the alleged video file namely "VID-20200115-WA0020.mp4"
present in Samsung mobile phone marked as D1a are enclosed in a softcopy as Annexure-A6."
The videos on further analysis are found that they are from the bath room of the petitioner. These are the FSL reports. The issue is in cases of rape, repeated rape and offence of rape on being in domination as obtaining under Section 376(2)(k) of the IPC, notwithstanding the filing of the charge sheet, should entail in enlargement of the petitioner on bail. The answer would be unequivocal and emphatic "no", for the reason that the offence is heinous, the allegations are grave and propensity of committing those offences and threatening the witnesses looms large on account of the position that the petitioner or accused No.1 enjoy.
2113. It becomes apposite to refer to certain judgments of the Apex Court. 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:
(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 1 (2010) 14 SCC 496 22
(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;
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 32 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 23 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.
14. 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 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 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059 24 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 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.
2515. 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.
... ... ...
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.
3(2013) 7 SCC 77 26 A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. The Apex Court, a little earlier, in the case of JUGENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 4 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 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. Though the charge sheet is 4 (2012) 6 SCC 297 27 filed in the case at hand, there is no warrant for the petitioner being released on grant of bail in Crime No.2 of 2024.
17. 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 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.28
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. The judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel for petitioner would not lend any assistance for consideration of grant of bail to the petitioner.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition seeking enlargement of the petitioner on bail stands rejected.
It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of 29 petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings pending against him in any crime.
Sd/-
(M. NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Bkp CT:MJ