Sri. Muniraju @ Babu vs State of Karnataka

V. Jagannathan, J.—The Petitioner, who is accused of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 376, 420 read with 34 of IPC seeks anticipatory bail.

The case of the prosecution as per the complaint lodged by the victim is that, the Petitioner told her that he would many her and sought for sexual intercourse. The victim refused the said request, of the Petitioner, but nevertheless, the Petitioner had forcible intercourse with her leading to victim becoming pregnant of seven months. Later on, the victim came to know that the Petitioner was a married person and therefore she sought: for action to be taken against him.

Submission of Petitioner''s counsel is that, the victim girl must have been a consenting party because the complaint is lodged long after she became pregnant. Moreover, the Petitioner was married in the year 2009 arid therefore it is unlikely that; the Petitioner would have promised the victim that he would many her. According to the Petitioner''s counsel the case is one of consent and therefore relying on the Apex Court decision reported in 2003(2) Crimes 176 submission made is that, no offence of rape can be made out.

Submission of learned Addl. S.P.P. for the State is that, a plain reading of the complaint would go to show that the Petitioner committed the act of rape on the victim as the victim was not a consenting party. The Petitioner promised to many her, but did not keep up his promise. Moreover, the victim was not aware of the Petitioner being already a married person.

Having thus heard both sides and taking note of the complaint allegations, I am of the view that the Petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail not withstanding the decision cited by the Petitioners counsel as this Court, at this stage, cannot go into the merits of the case.

The Petition is rejected.