Manjunath vs State

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Additional State Public Prosecutor.

The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the complainant that she is one among five daughters to her parents and that her sisters and brothers are married except herself and that she is residing with her parents at Sagamakunta, Raichur. It transpires that accused No. 1 is the son of accused Nos. 2 and 3. The father of the petitioner is the uncle of the complainant and on that pretext, accused No. 1 would often visit her home and on 24.12.2012, when she was alone at home, it transpires that the petitioner had made advances towards her and had persuaded her to have sex with him and on the promise of marriage, he continued to have a relationship with her thereafter. It is later when she was pregnant, it is alleged that accused No. 1 persuaded her to have the pregnancy aborted and when the relationship was discovered, she had no choice but to disclose the affair to her family and since the petitioner is alleged to have resiled from the promise of marriage, the complaint was lodged, which was more than one year after the alleged incident, that is after the last of such sexual encounters with the petitioner. On that basis, a case has been registered against the petitioner.

The petitioner having approached the Court below seeking bail the Court below has rejected the same. It is clearly a case which would have to be addressed with reference to the settled principles of law as to such a case as the complainant being persuaded to have sex on the promise of marriage and there being negation of the promise. Though it is held that breach of a promise to marry does not result in a crime having been committed, the question as to whether there was an initial intention to abide by the promise to marry or not would be the crucial factor in deciding the guilt or otherwise of the accused in such cases as has been discussed in the case of Uday Vs. State of Karnataka, and as distinguished in Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, and hence, it would necessarily remain to be established at the trial as to the guilt of the accused.

Given the circumstances of the case where the complaint is filed more than one year and six months after the alleged incident, the petitioner''s guilt would necessarily have to be proved at the trial. The petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a self-bond for Rs. 40,000/- with a solvent surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Court below, subject to the following conditions.

(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly seek to influence the prosecution witnesses.

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigation officer as and when required and shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer,

(iii) The petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.

(iv) In case of violation of any of these conditions, the Court is at liberty to pass suitable orders.