Karnataka High Court
Sri Muniraja G @ Muniraju G vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 November, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7011 /2020
BETWEEN:
Sri.Muniraja.G @ Muniraju.G
S/o Guttappa,
Aged about 50 years,
R/a No.104, Munipoovanna Block,
Manorayanapalya, RT Nagar post,
Bangalore-560 016.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Nithin M., Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
Rep. by Public Prosecutor
For Hebbala Police Station,
J.C.Nagar Sub Division,
Hebbala, Bangalore-01. ...Respondent
(By Sri.Mahesh Shetty, HCGP &
Sri.Krishnamurthy. T.R., Advocate for applicant)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438
of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
-2-
the event of their arrest inCr.No.177/2020 of Hebbal
P.S., Bangalore for the offence P/U/S 354A, 354C,
376, 420, 508 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.66E of I.T Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in Crime No.177/2020 of Hebbal Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 354(C), 376, 420, 508 r/w Section 34 of IPC and also under Section 66E of Information Technology Act, 2000.
2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri. Nitin.M. for petitioner/accused No.1 and learned High Court Government Pleader Sri. Mahesh Shetty, on behalf of respondent No.1 and assisted by Sri. Krishnamurthy.T.R, Advocate, on the basis of the I.A No.2/2020.
-3-
3. The gist of the case of complaint in brief is that the petitioner/accused No.1 was working with the complainant as a driver and he has collected crores of rupees from the complainant, on the pretext of getting complainant's husband treated for kidney related complications and other real estate related dealings. It is further alleged that after the death of husband of the complainant under the guise of religious rituals, petitioner/accused No.1 has extracted money from the complainant and has also made the complainant to sit nude in the said rituals and has touched her body and has also sexually assaulted. It is further alleged that the nude photographs and other photographs have been videographed and the petitioner/accused No.1 has threatened the complainant that he would publish the said videos, if the complainant informs about the said fact to any other persons. It is further alleged by the complainant that when she had been to the house -4- of the petitioner/accused No.1 he has sexually assaulted her and the petitioner/accused No.1 has transferred the property in his name. On the basis of the complaint a case has been registered.
3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 that whatever the religious rituals which have been attended by the complainant are on her own volition and will without there being any force and it is with full consent and knowledge of the complainant. It is his further submission that the provisions of Section 354(A), 354(C) and 376 of IPC are not attracted. It is his further submission that nowhere in the complaint such allegations have been made so as to attract the provisions of Sections 354(A), 354(C) and 376 of IPC. It is his further submission that there is no relationship whatsoever much less the sexual act as against the complainant. It is his further submission -5- that the petitioner/accused No.1 is also a relative of the complainant and he has not cheated and whatever amount which has been received by him is as a loan and the said transactions have taken place since 2005-2017 and no such complaint or allegations have been made during the said tenure. It is his further submission that the Hebbal Police have no jurisdiction and the present complaint has been filed only because of the reason that on 25.09.2020, the son of the complainant has filed a complaint at Ramamurthynagar Police Station, subsequently the petitioner/accused appeared and produced documents on 26.09.2020 and the police have directed as there is no case made out and being frightened that this case may also be closed and with an intention to harass petitioner/accused No.1, the said complaint has been filed before Hebbal Police Station. It is his further submission that when the father-in-law of daughter of -6- the complainant has stated that the conduct of the petitioner/accused No.1 is not good and after knowing the said fact there is again a transaction of complainant with petitioner/accused which is unbelievable. It is his further submission that the complainant has taken it as a challenge and due to revenge, entire family members of the petitioner/accused No.1 have been included in the alleged crime and a false complaint has been registered. The petitioner/accused No.1 is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds he prays to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that admittedly the petitioner/accused No.1 as a driver working under the complainant and -7- subsequently after the death of husband of the complainant and sister of the complainant she was mentally depressed and he introduced some astrologist and through the astrologist he has extracted money. He has also taken money from the complainant and has also got transferred two flats without any consideration. It is his further submission that nearly about one crore and fifty four lakhs rupees has been cheated to the complainant. It is his further submission that the statement of the complainant has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and in her statement she has substantiated what has been stated in the complaint. It is also his submission that medical report yet to be obtained and still the investigation is in progress. It is his submission that if petitioner/accused No.1 is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence. It is his further submission that one Manjula was intending to assist -8- complainant in pursuing the case and only because of his threat a criminal case has been registered in this behalf and subsequently it has been converted to NCR. It is his further submission that during the course of activities, the petitioner/accused No.1 has made the complainant nude under the religious rituals and recorded the video and used it to threaten the complainant by showing those videos to be released to the network and thereby he has sexually assaulted her. The videos recorded have to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner/accused No.1 and in that light custodial interrogation of petitioner/accused No.1 is very much necessary. It is his further submission that petitioner/accused No.1 has been involved in serious offence of sexual assault. Under such circumstances this Court cannot release petitioner/accused No.1 on bail, on these grounds he prays to dismiss the petition.
-9-
5. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and the learned counsel for the petitioner has elaborately taken me through the contents and the complaint and other documents. On close reading of the complaint and contents of the complaint it indicates that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner/accused has joined the services at the house of the complainant as a driver and thereafter after the death of the husband of the complainant under the guise of religious rituals, he has taken to some astrologist and there the complainant had been made nude and subsequently the said videographs have been made. Thereafter she has been sexually assaulted. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 contended that the provisions of 354(A), 354(C) and 376 of the Act are not attracted but, it is premature stage and
- 10 -
still the investigation is going on and it is the specific contention of the complainant that the nude videos have been collected by the petitioner/accused No.1 and so he used to threaten by showing the same and he also used to sexually assault then under such circumstances it cannot be held that no case has been made out by the complainant at this juncture. It is also alleged that huge amount has also been transferred and admittedly two sites have been registered in the name of the petitioner/accused No.1. It is the contention of complainant that no amount has been given as a consideration for the transaction of the said two flats. But, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the sale deed itself indicates that complainant had received the consideration amount. These are all the matters which are to be dealt with only during the course of trial. Under such circumstances, this Court
- 11 -
cannot exercise discretionary power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and release the petitioner/accused No.1 on anticipatory bail.
6. Even as could be seen from the complaint and FIR the accused/petitioner has also been booked under Section 66E of Information Technology Act, 2000 for having recorded nude photos and other obscene things. In that light, custodial interrogation of petitioner/accused No.1 is very much necessary.
7. In the light of the discussion held by me above, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner/accused No.1 has not made out any good
- 12 -
grounds to allow the petition. The same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly petition is dismissed.
I.A.No.1/2020 does not survive for consideration. The same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RKA