Gurudath vs State of Karnataka

A.S. Pachhapure, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in Cr. No. 176/2014 of Subramanyanagar Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 506, 376 and 420 IPC.

The facts reveal that the victim submitted a complaint to the police on the allegation that herself and the petitioner were friends since childhood and had decided to marry. In the month of February, 2013, when the victim was in Hyderabad, the petitioner is said to have gone and used to meet the victim and on 07.08.2013 he took her to the house and with an assurance to marry her said to have had a sexual intercourse with the victim against her will. At that time, he is said to have taken obscene pictures of sexual relationship and having assured to marry her made her to undergo abortion on two occasions in the month of November, 2013 and March, 2014. Thereafter, whenever victim insisted the petitioner to marry her, he has refused to do so and when the victim told the petitioner that she would approach the police to submit a complaint, he insisted her to postpone it and did not marry her. It is in these circumstances, that the victim approached the police and submitted a complaint on the aforesaid facts. Apprehending arrest in the aforesaid crime, the present petition is filed.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader.

The point that arises for my consideration is:

"Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail sought for?"

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in Ravi Vs. The State of Karnataka, . Perusal of the facts therein reveals that there was a promise to marry and both had sexual intercourse and subsequently, as there was no marriage, a complaint came to be filed for the act of cheating. In the aforesaid circumstances, the crime came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120B and 212 read with Section 34 IPC and this Court taking into consideration the fact that as far as three years, there was sex relationship between the victim and accused and granted anticipatory bail in respect of the offences under Sections 420, 120B and 212 read with Section 34 IPC. Placing reliance on this decision, it is the submission of learned Counsel that facts on hand are similar to the facts stated therein and the petitioner is entitled to the bail sought for.

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail application.

Perusal of the contents of complaint would reveal that the victim and the petitioner herein are childhood friends. The friendship is different from having sex relationship amongst them. That apart, the sexual intercourse for the first time was in the month of August, 2013 and at that time, it is the grievance of victim that petitioner assured to marry her and despite unwilling to undergo sexual intercourse forced her to commit the aforesaid act. That apart, it is also the grievance of victim that photographs were taken of the sex relationship amongst them and misused the said photographs and having assured to marry her, the petitioner has not married and made her to undergo abortion on two occasions. This relationship is for the last one year and whatever it has been alleged by the victim is that there was an assurance to marry and with the said assurance, there was sexual intercourse. The facts are altogether different from the facts of the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for petitioner. Therefore, I do not think the principle laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgment would be applicable.

Perusal of the material placed on record reveals that there was a forcible sexual intercourse with deceitful representation that he would marry the victim. Prima facie this amounts to an offence under Section 376 IPC. The question as to whether the petitioner has to be punished or not is a matter which will have to be taken into consideration only after the evidence is recorded. The presence of petitioner would be necessary before the police for examination and also collecting the other material inclusive of the photographs said to have been taken relating to the sexual intercourse between the victim and the petitioner. In the circumstances, prima facie looking to the material placed on record, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case where anticipatory bail could be granted. In the circumstances, petitioner has to appear before the police at an earliest point of time and he does not deserve the anticipatory bail.

Consequently, the petition is dismissed.

I.A. 1/2014 for interim bail and I.A. 2/2014 for permission do not survive for consideration. Hence, they are rejected.