Karnataka High Court
Shri. Pramodh Kumar B G vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 February, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5383
CRL.A No. 113 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 113 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SHRI. PRAMODH KUMAR B.G.
S/O GANESH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT: No.11632
NEAR SANKALP APARTMENT
II PHASE, 4TH STAGE
VIJAYANAGARA
MYSURU - 570 017.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PALLAVA R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VIJAYANAGARA P. S
MYSURU, REPRESENTED BY
Digitally signed by THE LEARNED S .P .P
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BENGALURU - 560 001.
KARNATAKA
2. KUM. ASHWINI M
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
D/O MANCHAIAH
R/AT: No.119/28
3RD CROSS, RAJENDRA NAGAR
MYSURU - 570 006.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R-1
SRI. G.H. LOHITH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5383
CRL.A No. 113 of 2024
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.12.2023
PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.MISC.No.2423/2023 AND ETC,.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant - accused No.1 praying to set aside the order dated 29.12.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.2423/2023 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, whereunder, the anticipatory bail petition of the appellant - accused No.1 sought in respect of Crime No.224/2023 of Vijayanagara Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 376, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), came to be rejected.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:5383 CRL.A No. 113 of 2024
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.1, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, respondent and appellant are colleagues in the company since 2017 and they become acquainted with each other in the course of their employment and their friendship eventually turned to attraction towards each other and they developed mutual feelings with each other. The appellant and complainant have traveled together on various trips and spent time with each other and never initiated any physical contact.
4. It is further case of respondent No.2 that the appellant - accused No.1 proposed to marry her and she told that she belongs to Scheduled Caste and if his parents agree, they will proceed further. During March, 2023, both went to Gokarna, where, with the promise of marriage, he had sexual intercourse with her, against her will. After -4- NC: 2024:KHC:5383 CRL.A No. 113 of 2024 two-three days', the appellant - accused No.1 intimated her that her parents are not agreeing for marriage, as she belongs to Scheduled Caste. Thereafter, on 25.06.2023, the appellant - accused No.1 took respondent No.2 to Capital M.K.Arcade Hotel and told her that he will marry her within few days and had sexual intercourse with her against her will. Thereafter, whenever, respondent No.2 asked him to marry her, the appellant - accused No.1 used to postpone the same, on one or the other pretext and during last week of July, he blocked her number and thereafter, he did not receive her calls. Respondent No.2 on 19.11.2023, went to the house of the appellant - accused No.1, where, the appellant - accused No.1 and his parents abused her taking her caste name and refused for the marriage. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the appellant - accused No.1 and his parents on 15.12.2023 which came to be registered in Crime No.224/2023 for the offences under Sections 417, 420, 376 and 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant - -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:5383 CRL.A No. 113 of 2024 accused No.1 and his parents, apprehending their arrest filed Crl.Misc.No.2423/2023, seeking anticipatory bail and the same came to be allowed insofar as the parents of this appellant - accused No.1 are concerned and it came to be rejected sofar as this appellant - accused No.1 is concerned by order dated 29.12.2023. The said order has been challenged in this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant - accused No.1 would contend that the appellant - accused No.1 and respondent No.2 were colleagues and friends and they developed intimacy and had affair. He further submits that due to his medical condition of erectile dysfunction, he cut off his relationship with respondent No.2 and therefore, respondent No.2 mocked this appellant - accused No.1 as he is unable to perform sexual intercourse. He places reliance on the certificate issued by Kidney Stone Clinic & Men's Health Centre, Mysuru, for having taken treatment for the said erectile dysfunction and it is dated 14.06.2023. He further submits that -6- NC: 2024:KHC:5383 CRL.A No. 113 of 2024 parents of this appellant - accused No.1 who alleged to have abused along with this appellant - accused No.1 taking caste name of respondent No.2 and refused for marriage of appellant - accused No.1 with respondent No.2, have been granted anticipatory bail under the impugned order. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to the appellant - accused No.1.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that respondent No.2 belongs to Scheduled Caste and the appellant - accused No.1 under the pretext of marriage, had sexual intercourse with her against her will two times and thereafter, along with his parents, he abused her taking her caste name and refused to marry her. The matter is at the stage of investigation and the presence of this appellant - accused No.1 is required for custodial interrogation. Considering all these aspects, the learned District and Special Judge has rightly rejected the anticipatory bail petition of this appellant - -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:5383 CRL.A No. 113 of 2024 accused No.1. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend that the appellant - accused No.1 had taken treatment for erectile dysfunction on 14.06.2023. After taking treatment, the appellant - accused No.1 recovered. Even the appellant - accused No.1 had approached the diagnostic centre on 18.07.2023 for test and the result shows improvement in his erectile dysfunction. He contends that as this respondent No.2 belongs to Scheduled Caste, he refused to marry her and under the pretext of marriage, he had sexual intercourse with her against her will. Considering all these aspects, the learned District and Special Judge has rightly rejected his anticipatory bail petition. With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the impugned order, F.I.R, complaint and the other documents.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:5383 CRL.A No. 113 of 2024
9. The averments of the complaint indicate that the appellant - accused No.1 and respondent No.2 are colleagues in a Company. They developed friendship and eventually, the said friendship turned into affair. It is alleged in the complaint that, on two dates ie., during March, 2023 and 25.06.2023, this appellant - accused No.1 had sexual intercourse with the complainant against her will, there is no complaint by this respondent No.2 against this appellant - accused No.1 in that regard. It is only because he refused to marry her and he abused along with his parents taking her caste name, a complaint came to be filed. The victim is aged thirty years and know the consequences of her acts. The parents of the appellant - accused No.1 who have been arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3, who stated to have abused the complainant along with this appellant - accused No.1 touching her caste and refused to marry on that ground, have been granted anticipatory bail. The document produced by the appellant
- accused No.1 would indicate that he has been diagnosed -9- NC: 2024:KHC:5383 CRL.A No. 113 of 2024 for erectile dysfunction and he is taking treatment since 14.06.2023.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant - accused No.1 has argued that as he was not able to perform the sexual act, the complainant mocked him and ultimately filed the complaint. The said aspect cannot be delved into, since the investigation is in progress. The appellant - accused No.1 has undertaken to co-operate with the police in investigation. If the appellant - accused No.1 is arrested, it will affect his reputation as he is an young age person working in a Company. Without considering all these aspects, the learned District and Special Judge has passed the impugned order which requires interference by this Court.
11. The appellant - accused No.1 has made out grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of anticipatory bail. In the result, the following;
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:5383 CRL.A No. 113 of 2024 ORDER
(i) The appellant-accused No.1 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
(ii) The appellant-accused No.1 shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and execute the bail bond and furnish the surety.
(iii) The appellant-accused No.1 shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer in investigation.
(iv) The appellant-accused No.1 shall not threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses.
(v) The appellant-accused No.1 shall not hamper the investigation.
Sd/-
JUDGE DSP, GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8