Umar Adil Sharief vs State

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in respect of Cr. No. 926/2014 registered by the Madivala Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 319 of IPC.

Bail application filed by the petitioner has already been dismissed by the Court of the LIII Addl. City & Sessions Judge, Bangalore on 12.8.2014 in Crl. Misc. No. 4164/2014. The petitioner is apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent-Police.

The Government Pleader vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that he is required for custodial interrogation and medical examination under Section 53(A) of Cr.P.C. and that this is not a fit case to grant bail.

Perused the records. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

On going through the detailed first information lodged by Ms. Parul Nagar, it is evident that both the petitioner and first informant are colleagues working in MNC company namely Accenture at Bangalore. Admittedly, petitioner is a married man and his marriage was solemnized about 6 years ago and both of them do not have any issue out of the said marriage. The detailed first information lodged discloses that first information had developed intimacy with the petitioner for more than a year and the intimacy had developed to such an extent that she had called the petitioner to her house several times. It is alleged in the complaint dated 14.7.2014 that when she had called the petitioner to her house for dinner on 19.6.2014 he had forcibly raped her for 10 minutes. This is the basis for lodging complaint.

Admittedly, the first information discloses that she had developed intimacy with him and had ever-agreed to marry him. The pith and substance of the first information would disclose that the petitioner had physical contact with the first informant on several occasions and present petition is the out come of the breach of promise of marriage. Whether sexual intercourse with consent by a grown up lady and later on breach of promise of marriage would really amount to rape has been well dealt by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Uday v. State of Karnataka reported in 2003(4) SCC 446 wherein it is clearly stated that such an act would not amount to rape.

Suffice to state that the petitioner has undertaken to obey any conditions imposed on him inclusive of subjecting him for medical examination as per mandate of Section 53(A) of Cr.P.C. The apprehension of the learned Government Pleader would be suitably met with by imposing certain conditions

Accordingly, petition is allowed and anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

a) Petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Cr. No. 926/2014 by Madivala Police, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the I.O.

b) Petitioner shall surrender before the jurisdictional police station on or before 7.11.2014 without fail.

c) Petitioner shall cooperate with the I.O. for conducting investigation and shall attend the police station whenever he is required for further investigation.

d) Petitioner shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses or lure them in any manner.

e) Petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activities.

Notwithstanding the passing of this order, the respondent-Police is at liberty to subject the petitioner for medical examination under Section 53(A) of Cr.P.C.