Karnataka High Court
Sri Devaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.65/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI DEVARAJU,
S/O MUNIKRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE,
CHIKKAGOLLRAHATTI INDIRA COLONY,
LAKSHMIPURA, BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 562 123 . ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI M. RAMASWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BYADARAHALLI POLICE,
REP. BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT, BENGALURU. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.K. KRISHNA KUMAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.481/2021 OF BYADARAHALLI P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 354B, 506, 504, 323,
376 AND 417 OF IPC AND SECTION 67(A) OF I.T ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.481/2021 of Byadarahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 354B, 506, 504, 323, 376 and 417 of IPC and Section 67(A) of Information Technology Act ('IT Act' for short).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant in the complaint dated 24.11.2021 made an allegation against the petitioner that he took the obscene photographs of the complainant, assaulted and abused her and when she resisted the act of the petitioner, he uploaded the obscene photographs to his relatives and brothers total to 20-30 persons. In her further statement on the very same day, the complainant made an allegation that promising that he would marry her, he had sexual intercourse with her against her wish and also blackmailed taking nude photographs of the victim and 3 hence the other offence under Sections 376 and 417 of IPC is invoked and the matter is under investigation.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the first instance, only the offence punishable under Sections 354B, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 67(A) of IT Act were invoked and based on the further statement, offence under Sections 376 and 417 of IPC are invoked. When there is no specific allegation about subjecting her for sexual act in the first complaint, the very invoking of Sections 376 and 417 of IPC is doubtful. The learned counsel submits that this petitioner is in custody from the date of arrest and no need of further custodial interrogation in the matter and hence he may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that in the first complaint, not alleged anything about Section 376 of IPC, but on the very same day in the further statement she made an allegation that on the guise of marrying her, the petitioner subjected her for sexual act. Apart from that, he had sexual intercourse and took the nude photographs of the victim and started to blackmail her and uploaded the photographs to her 4 relatives and hence there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and the matter requires further investigation.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and taking note of the allegations made in the complaint, a specific allegation is made that he took the nude photographs of the victim. In the further statement, specific allegation is made that the petitioner subjected her for sexual act and also uploaded the said photographs to her relatives to around 20-30 persons. When such specific allegationd are made and when the matter is under investigation, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion until investigation is completed.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is rejected. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach this Court after filing of the charge-sheet.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD