Karnataka High Court
Suresh Krishnan vs State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2020
Crl.P.No.1488/2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1488/2020
BETWEEN:
SURESH KRISHNAN
S/O SHRI NAGARAJAN
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
EMPLOYED AT SOS INTERNATIONAL
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT LLC
14TH FLOOR, AL ANSARI BUILDING
KHALIFA STREET, ABU-DHABI
PERMANENT R/AT NO.4/6
GANDHI EAST PANAGUDI
RADHAPURAM TALUK
THIRUNELVELI - 635 118
TAMIL NADU ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI A.RAMESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI HITESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HAL POLICE STATION
BENGALURU - 560 001
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP;
SRI RAKSHITH R, ADVOCATE FOR DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.513/2018 (C.C.NO.56470/2019)
REGISTERED BY HAL POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376, 313, 420,
504 AND 506 OF IPC.
Crl.P.No.1488/2020
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
H.A.L police have charge sheeted the petitioner in Crime No.513/2018 of their station for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 313, 420, 504 and 506 of IPC on the basis of the complaint filed by CW.1.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
That the petitioner befriended CW.1 in December 2016 through face book contact and then both of them fell in love in May 2017. They met each other in Bengaluru. Accused represented that he is working in Abu Dhabi and gets her also a job there. Accordingly, she moved to Abu Dhabi in December 2017. Inducing with the promise of marriage he sexually abused her. Consequent to such relationship CW.1 conceived. Then he sent her back to India and forcibly got her pregnancy terminated in Gnana Geetha Nursing Home, Mumbai. Thereafter, he backtracked and when CW.1 questioned him, he criminally intimidated her and cheated her. Crl.P.No.1488/2020 3
3. While filing the charge sheet, the petitioner was shown as absconding accused. He was arrested on 10.01.2020.
4. Sri A.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Hitesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the following grounds:
(i) Entire charge sheet records show that the alleged act between CW.1 and the petitioner was consensual one;
(ii) The alleged offence under Section 376 of IPC has taken place in the territory of Abu Dhabi;
(iii) Having regard to Section 188 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner cannot be prosecuted in India without sanction of the Central Government and no such sanction order is forthcoming in the charge sheet records;
(iv) Petitioner was not aware of the registration of the case or filing of the charge sheet. There is no question of he absconding. If bail is granted, he undertakes to makes him available for trial; Crl.P.No.1488/2020 4
(v) The police have already seized the passport;
(vi) The allegations that the petitioner and his relatives threatening CW.1 are false.
5. In support of his contention, he relies upon the following judgments:
(i) X v. State of Telangana1
(ii) Dr.Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of
Maharashtra and Others2
(iii) Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of
Maharashtra3
(iv) Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors. Etc vs. The
State of Telangana & Anr.4
6. Per contra, Sri Rakshith.R, learned Counsel for the de-facto complainant and Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader oppose the petition on the following grounds:
(i) There is sufficient material in the charge sheet to show that the petitioner has committed the offences alleged against him;
1 (2018) 16 SCC 511 2 2018 SCC Online SC 3100 3 (2019) 9 SCC 608 4 Crl.A.Nos.1974-1975 of 2019 (@ SLP (Crl.) Nos.8882-8883/2019) DD 07.01.2020 Crl.P.No.1488/2020 5
(ii) The very fact that the petitioner could not be secured up to January 2020 shows that if bail is granted, he is likely to flee away from justice;
(iii) Since the time of remanding the petitioner to judicial custody, X is facing threatening calls;
(iv) If bail is granted, the petitioner is likely to tamper the witnesses; &
(v) Bar under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. is to try the accused without sanction and not for taking cognizance.
7. As per the settled principles of law the Court has to examine the following aspects while considering the bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
(i) Whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed an offence exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life;
(ii) Whether it is possible to secure the accused for trial; & Crl.P.No.1488/2020 6
(iii) Whether there is likelihood of accused tampering the witnesses.
8. As per the complaint and charge sheet records, CW.1 and the petitioner got befriended on the social media in December 2016. They met for the first time in Bengaluru in early 2017. In November 2017 petitioner moved to Abu Dhabi to join the petitioner. The alleged act of rape was committed in December 2017. According to CW.1 herself, it was the petitioner who arranged for her visa and flight tickets to move to Abu Dhabi and he was taking her to the work place in his car. They were intending to marry each other with consent of their family members. The alleged act of termination of the pregnancy was on 09.03.2018.
9. CW.1 herself states sexual act between her and the petitioner was on the inducement of the marriage. The fact of inducement and falsity of promise of the marriage are required to be proved on trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in X v. State of Telangana's case, Dr.Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar's case and Crl.P.No.1488/2020 7 Pramod Suryabhan Pawar's case referred to supra in similar circumstances, observed that the circumstances do bear upon the defence that there was a consensual relationship between the petitioner and accused.
10. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar's case and Dr.Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar's case, the whole proceedings were quashed invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In X's case referred to supra the bail order granted in favour of the accused was upheld.
11. So far as question of securing the petitioner for trial, admittedly, the petitioner was residing in Abu Dhabi. There was nothing to show that registration of the first information report or filing of the charge sheet was within his knowledge. Now, the passport and VISA of the petitioner are seized. Therefore, chances of he fleeing away from justice is remote. Further, that apprehension can be remedied by imposing suitable conditions.
Crl.P.No.1488/20208
12. So far as the allegations of tampering the witnesses, in the affidavit filed by CW.1 before this Court today, vaguely it is stated that the relatives of the petitioner are threatening her. Particulars of such threats are not stated. In Myakala Dharmarajam & Others's case and Dr.Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar's case and other cases referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar circumstances, rejected the contentions of tampering the witnesses on the ground that particulars of the alleged threats were not stated. Apart from that, even that apprehension can be remedied by imposing suitable conditions.
13. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 10.01.2020. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the judgments of the Supreme Courts referred to supra, it is a fit case to grant bail. Therefore, the petition is allowed.
The petitioner is granted bail in Crime No.513/2018 of H.A.L police station, Bengaluru which is now pending in C.C.No.56470/2019 on the file of XXIX Crl.P.No.1488/2020 9 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Petitioner shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;
(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required for the purpose of enquiry or trial;
(iii) Petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner;
(iv) Petitioner shall be stationed in Bengaluru till trial is concluded; &
(v) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without leave of the trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE KSR