Shivakumar vs State of Karnataka

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

The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 109, 376, 417 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

It is alleged by the complainant that the petitioner had promised marriage and had a sexual relationship with her, spread over more than a decade. It is thereafter, he is said to have resiled from the promise and hence, the complaint.

A case having been registered against the petitioner on the basis of the above allegations, the petitioner had approached the Court below seeking bail, the same has been rejected by a lengthy order citing several authorities. However, there is no indication that Court below was apprised of the case of Uday Vs. State of Karnataka, as distinguished in Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, . Cases such as the present one on hand would necessarily have to be addressed with reference to the settled principles in the said decisions. Accordingly, it would be for the prosecution to establish the case against the petitioner at the trial. Given the long relationship between the complainant and the petitioner, the seriousness of the allegations would certainly be diluted and hence, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) with one solvent surety for a like sum, subject to following conditions:

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

(ii) He 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.