Karnataka High Court
Sri. Jagadeesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 November, 2022
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9056/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI.JAGADEESH
S/O MAHARUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O VITTALAPURA VILLAGE
DAVANGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577534
....PETITIONER
(BY SMT.VINITHA J.D, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MAYAKONDA POLICE
REPRESENTED BY STATE PP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 01.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)
*****
THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
2
CR.NO.71/2022 OF MAYAKONDA P.S., DAVANAGERE
(C.C.NO.5941/2022) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376(2)(N), 420,
114, 34 OF IPC AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner - accused No.1 has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for enlarging him on bail in Crime No.71/2022 of Mayakonda Police Station, Davanagere District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 420, 114 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') pending on the file of the 1st Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for State. Perused the records.
3. As per the case of the prosecution, the present petitioner and the complainant were in love with each other since last six years. It is further alleged that both families 3 have consented for their marriage and when the complainant insisted for the marriage, accused No.2 asserted that he is constructing the house and only after construction, the marriage can be performed. It is also alleged that three months earlier to lodging the complaint, the petitioner under the guise of marrying the complainant had forcibly committed rape on the victim. On 01.07.2022, the father of the petitioner postponed the marriage on the ground that they are constructing the house. It is further alleged that the petitioner and the complainant in order to have the marriage came to Santhebennur, where her first cousin brother dropped. On 01.07.2022, they came from Santhebennur to Ammanagudda Temple, wherein he booked a room in the said temple and on that night also under the guise of marriage, the petitioner had physical relationship with the complainant. It is also alleged that on 02.07.2022 at about 8.45 a.m., the petitioner asserted that he cannot marry in the said temple as there is a possibility of the villagers visiting the said place and asked her 4 that he would arrange it in Shivamogga and he dropped her near Shivamogga and asked her that her friend Abhishek will come pick her and give the mobile number of Abhishek. Thereafter, he went away under the guise of getting relevant materials for performance of marriage. When she contacted Abhishek, he said that he is not in the station and hence, he could not come and then, she came to Shivamogga bus stand and she could not contact the complainant and then, she came to Channagiri and from there, she returned in the evening to Davanagere and lodged a complaint in this regard.
4. On the basis of the complaint, the Investigating Officer apprehended the present petitioner and during the course of investigation, the petitioner as well as the complainant were subjected to medical examination and after completion of the investigation, he has submitted a charge sheet and statement of the complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C was also recorded. The petitioner has moved a regular bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned 5 Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident from the records that the petitioner and the complainant were in love for the last six years and it was within the knowledge of all the family members and there was consent. The allegations disclose that three months prior to lodging of the complaint, the petitioner had forcibly committed the rape on the complainant under the guise of marrying her. It is also alleged that on 01.07.2022 in Ammanagudda Temple room again he has committed rape, wherein they had been there for getting the marriage and later on, they returned to Shivamogga, wherein it is also alleged that the complainant was left in that place and the petitioner fled away from the spot by giving the mobile number of his friend.
6. The statement of the complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C was also recorded before the learned Magistrate. In 6 164 Cr.P.C statement, it is alleged that on 18.04.2022, the petitioner under the guise of marriage had physical relationship with the complainant. But in the complaint, there is no specific date mentioned regarding the first sexual assault. It is her 164 Cr.P.C statement though supports the allegations regarding rape dated 01.07.2022 but her complaint allegations regarding the petitioner leaving her near Shivamogga and asking her to contact her friend by name Abhishek is not supported and she has given a different version that he left her in a village near Shivamogga under the guise that he will visit to his village and again try to persuade his father and then, they can marry. These two stands taken by the complainant in the complaint and in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C are entirely different. Regarding the earlier rape, there was no allegation of forcible sex. In 164 Cr.P.C statement given by the complainant discloses that it was a consensual sex. However, there are allegations that the consensual sex was under the false 7 promise of marriage and it amounts to rape as per catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, whether there was a false promise or there was a real intention on the part of the petitioner to perform the marriage with the complainant is required to be tested during the course of the trial.
7. Apart from that in the complaint, the father of the petitioner was also included as accused No.2. It is nobody's case that he has instigated or abated the present petitioner - accused No.1 to commit rape, but, he was also charge- sheeted by the prosecution. This gives a different dimension to the entire case of the prosecution. The records disclose that the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been submitted. Under these circumstances, I do not find any impediment for admitting the petitioner on bail. The other apprehensions expressed by the learned HCGP can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Hence, the petition needs to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following; 8
ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner/Accused No.1 is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.71/2022 of Mayakonda Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 420, 114 and 34 of IPC, which is pending on the file of the 1st Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Davanagere in CC No.5941/2022, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that:-
i) He shall not indulge in any of the criminal activities.
ii) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.
iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court, without prior permission.
iv) He shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing, unless he is exempted by a specific order.9
v) He shall co-operate for speedy disposal of the matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE NBM