Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 493 (KAR)

Fazal B. Anwar v. State of Karnataka

2011-04-28

K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA

body2011
ORDER K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.—The petitioner herein is accused No. 1 in Crime No. 11/2011 of Doddaballapura Town Police registered for the offences under Sections 324, 366, 376, 498A read with 149 of IPC. 2. According to the case of the prosecution, one Lakshmi, daughter of K.G. Shivanna, Doddaballapura Taluk lodged a complaint on 27.1.2011 inter alia alleging that the petitioner herein was teasing her as and when she was going towards the college and was insisting her to marry her on the ground that he is loving her and he was threatening her to throw acid on her face if she does not marry him and in this background on 2.10.2010, the petitioner herein along with his companions came to the house of the complainant, dragged her into an autorikshaw, took her to a place and was forced to marry him and thereafter she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse etc. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the complainant and the petitioner were loving each other, and since the parents of the complainant did not agree for the marriage, the complainant voluntarily left the house and married the petitioner and thereafter they lived together as husband and wife for several days. Thereafter the mother of the complainant had lodged a complaint alleging missing of her daughter based on which a case was registered and during investigation of that case, the complainant appeared before the police and made a statement to the effect that she voluntarily left the house and married the petitioner herein and on the basis of the said statement, the case was closed and subsequently with a view to harass the petitioner herein, at the instance of her mother, the complainant has filed a false complaint. It is the contention of the petitioner that except himself, all other accused persons have been granted bail and, therefore, he is also entitled for release on bail. According to him, he is innocent person and he has not done any of the acts alleged, as such he is not guilty of any of the offences. 4. The petition is opposed by the prosecution. 5. I have heard both sides. Perusal of the records prima facie indicate that the petitioner and the complainant were loving each other and since there was opposition for their marriage from their parents, the complainant left the house and thereafter married the petitioner herein. 4. The petition is opposed by the prosecution. 5. I have heard both sides. Perusal of the records prima facie indicate that the petitioner and the complainant were loving each other and since there was opposition for their marriage from their parents, the complainant left the house and thereafter married the petitioner herein. It is also noticed that the mother of the complainant had lodged a report about the missing of her daughter and during the investigation of that case, the complainant appeared before the police and said gave a statement to the effect that she voluntarily left the house and married the petitioner herein. It is thereafter the present complaint has been filed alleging the acts of kidnap and rape. 6. Having regard to the materials available on record and the statement said to have been made by the petitioner herein at the earliest point of time, at this stage, I am of the considered opinion that there are no grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offences alleged. All other accused persons have already been granted bail by the Sessions Court as well as by this Court. Of course the allegation of forcible rape is only against this petitioner. Nevertheless, at this stage, in the light of the statement said to have been made by the complainant at the earliest point of time, the contention of the petitioner that the present complaint has been filed only at the instance of the mother of the complainant with a view to harass the petitioner, cannot be termed as baseless. Therefore, having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled for the relief of bail. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 11/2011 of Doddaballapur Town Police subject to the petitioner executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. Therefore, having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled for the relief of bail. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 11/2011 of Doddaballapur Town Police subject to the petitioner executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate and also subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with the prosecution, witnesses in any manner; (ii) The petitioner, for the purpose of investigation, shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called upon to do so and co-operate in the investigation of the case; (iii) He shall appear on all hearing dates before the Court without fail; (iv) He shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged in the case; (v) He shall mark his attendance with the Investigating Officer on every 10th and 25th of each calendar month till filing of final report.