AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Srishananda, J
Heard Ms. Sowmya.R, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Vishwa Murthy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and perused the records.
The present petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.PC.
Brief facts of the care are as under:
A Complaint came to be lodged by the victim lady aged 26 years against the petitioner herein, before the Jagalur Police Station. Based on which, Jagalur Police registered a case in Crime No.217/2021 dated 29.10.2021 for the offence punishable under Section 376 and 420 IPC.
The gist of the complaint averments reveal that on account of promise of marriage by the petitioner, there was a physical relationship between the complainant and the accused and thereafter, he failed to marry her and she has given birth to a female child on 25.10.2021.
The police after registering the case, are investigating the matter.
The petitioner approached the learned District Court for grant of anticipatory bail, which was turned down by order dated 12.01.2022 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1008/2021. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner re-iterating the grounds urged in the bail petition contended that absolutely there is no iota of proof for the incident and therefore, sought for grant of bail.
Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail petition on the ground that in the guise of marrying the complainant, this petitioner had a physical relationship with the complainant. Ultimately, the victim has to deliver a female child on 25.10.2021 and therefore, all ingredients would attract the offences alleged and therefore, sought for rejection of the bail petition.
In view of the rival contentions, this court perused the material on record meticulously.
Admittedly, the victim is aged about 26 years. It is found from the complaint averments itself that the petitioner is a consenting party to the physical relationship with the petitioner herein on the guise of promise of marriage. However, there is a breach of promise of marriage and because of the physical relationship, the complainant became pregnant and delivered a female child on 25.12.2021.
Having regard to all these aspects of the matter, the custodial investigation is necessary in order to collect samples of the petitioner. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the matter, if the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigation Officer would meet the need of the prosecution and the right of the petitioner are balanced harmoniously. Accordingly, this court pass the following:
ORDER
(1) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(2) The Petitioner is directed to join the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer on 23.04.2022 at about 10.00 a.m.,
(3) The Investigation Officer is at liberty to take the petitioner to custody and complete the custodial investigation if any, on the same day before 6.00 p.m., and thereafter, let the petitioner be on bail, on taking a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One lakh only] with two sureties for the likesum.
(4) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper the prosecution evidence or hamper the investigation process in any manner.
(5) Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer on every alternate Sunday between 10.00 a.m., and 2.00 p.m., till the final report is filed.
(6) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Davanagere District without prior permission.
(7) Petitioner shall attend the court regularly. Violation of any of the above conditions, would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail.
Ordered accordingly.