Muniraju vs The State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

The present petitioners are said to be arraigned as accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 along with accused Nos. 1 and 4.

It transpires that the accused No. 1 was in love with one Shanthamma, the daughter of the complainant who was a college student. It transpires that she was reported missing by the complainant. Later it was also alleged that the accused had kidnapped Shanthamma and had forced her into marriage. It is on that basis that a case was registered for the offences punishable u/s 366A under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in the year 2012. It thereafter transpires that the petitioners were unaware of the case pending against them. It further transpires that the accused No. 1 had in fact, married Shanthamma and that she had a child by him. It is later that the petitioners learnt of the case pending against them as they had no inkling of any allegations against them and it is thereafter, they had approached the Court below seeking Anticipatory Bail, the Court below has rejected the bail petition on the footing that the petitioners had absconded throughout and therefore, their application for Anticipatory Bail could not be considered; While the Court below had not addressed the further developments, insofar as the accused No. 1 having married the alleged victim and having a child. This would certainly water down the allegations of kidnapping and other offences as against the present petitioners. This is a circumstance, which ought to have been emphasized and highlighted before the Court below. If this is done in the usual course the petitioners may even be entitled to bail. But since, the petitioners have not chosen to produce any material to demonstrate that accused No. 1 had indeed married Shanthamma and that they even had a child. And if the petitioners produce material before the Court below to seek regular bail, it may be possible that the Court below may even grant bail to the petitioners.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court below seeking bail. However, the petitioners apprehend that they may be taken into custody even before their application for bail is considered by the Court below. It is made clear that the Court below may not take them into custody pending consideration of their application for regular bail. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.