Ravi vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused No. 1 u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner-accused No. 1 on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 212 r/w Section 34 of IPC, registered in Crime No. 25/2014.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that, looking to the allegation in the complaint that the petitioner by giving promise to the complainant had sexual intercourse with her, thereby he has cheated the complainant. He also made submission that, there is delay of three years in lodging the complaint and there is no proper explanation by the complainant about the delay. He also submits that, looking to the allegation in the complaint itself, it goes to show that the complainant had been to the house of the present petitioner along with others to enquire with the petitioner about her marriage with the petitioner. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 not allowed her to meet accused No. 1 and confined her in a room. Learned Counsel for the petitioner made submission that, accused Nos. 2 and 3 have already been granted regular bail by the trial Court itself. He also submits that the sister of the present petitioner lodged a complaint against the complainant and others at an earlier point of time. Hence, he submits that, no prima-facie material is placed by the prosecution. Hence, submits that the petition may be allowed by imposing reasonable conditions.

As against this argument, the learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that the matter is still under investigation and at this stage, if the petitioner/accused No. 1 is granted with anticipatory bail, it becomes difficult for the Investigating Officer to interrogate the petitioner/accused No. 1. Hence, he submits that, the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, Complaint and order passed by the Lower Court on the bail application and other materials placed on record. Looking to the averments made in the complaint, it goes to show that the complainant was having friendship with the present petitioner since three years and there is an allegation that since from three years, the petitioner by promising that he would marry the complainant had sexual intercourse with her. Ultimately, he refused to marry her. Looking to the age of the complainant mentioned in the complaint, it is stated as 23 years and the materials placed on record goes to show prima-facie, even there is bodily contact between the complainant and the present petitioner, it is consensuous in nature. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though the allegations are that, the offence was committed three years prior, but the complaint has been lodged after lapse of three years.

In the bail petition, it is contended by the petitioner that, he is innocent and has not at all committed the alleged offence Even the material goes to show that the sister of the present petitioner also filed complaint against the complainant and others. Therefore, looking to the material on record, this goes to show that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. To secure the presence of the petitioner before the Investigating Officer for further investigation stringent condition can be imposed to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. The offences alleged are also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be granted the relief of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondent-police is directed to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable u/s 420, 120-B, 212 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station in Crime No. 25/2014 subject to the following conditions:

i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and shall furnish a solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii) Petitioner shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, whenever called for.

iv) Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.