Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1481 (KAR)

Akshay Kumar v. State of Karnataka

2017-11-09

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 417, 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC, registered in respondent - police station Crime No.08/2017. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are, the victim girl is the complainant in this case, wherein she has stated that she was residing with her parents and when she was studying in PUC about six years back, she came in contact with the petitioner and they started to love each other. When the complainant asked the petitioner to marry her, the petitioner replied that he would marry her after performance of his sister's marriage. When the complainant was residing in the house belonging to Mahesh, situated near Vinayaka Temple Road, Kote layout, Chikkamagaluru, in the absence of the parents of the complainant, the petitioner having made her to believe and instigated induced and without her consent had sexual intercourse with the complainant by promising that he would marry her, but dragged on the pretext of his sister's marriage and had the sexual intercourse for several times. It is her further allegation that when she came to know that the petitioner is getting married with another girl on 08.01.2017 at about 11.00 am, she went near the shop i.e., Hemant Varieties, situated at M.G. Road, Chikkamagaluru and enquired with the petitioner, but he refused to marry her and he also threatened, if she approaches anybody in the matter, he will kill her and also her family members. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered for the alleged offences. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that, earlier also the present petitioner approached the Court seeking anticipatory bail and considering the materials, the Court rejected the petition seeking anticipatory bail. Hence, he submitted that there is no change of circumstance. Hence petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made submission that, looking to the complaint averments and other prosecution materials, there is no prima-facie case to attract the alleged offence under Section 376 of IPC. Hence, he submitted that there is no change of circumstance. Hence petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made submission that, looking to the complaint averments and other prosecution materials, there is no prima-facie case to attract the alleged offence under Section 376 of IPC. Learned counsel further made submission that, now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on regular bail. 6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case. 7. Looking to the complaint averments, complainant mentioned her age as 21 years. There is also averments in the complaint that since six years she came in contact with the present petitioner, there was love between them, they were moving together and the allegation is that the petitioner by promising that he will marry her, he had sexual intercourse with her. The complaint averments go to show that, it is not a single alleged act of intercourse. It is stated by the complainant herself that so many times, the present petitioner had such sexual intercourse with her. There is a delay of six months in lodging the complaint. She is major aged about 21 years. Even if it is assumed that there was sex between them, the complaint averments and other materials prima-facie at this stage goes to show that it is consensual in nature. I have also perused the bail order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.1266/2017 dated 13.04.2017, which was filed by the petitioner herein seeking anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected without going into the merits of the case. However, while rejecting the said petition, the Court suggested the parties for settlement by way of mutual discussion. 8. Since the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed and the petitioner has undertaken that he is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court, petition is allowed. 9. Petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Section 417, 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC registered in Crime No.08/2017, subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and has to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. 9. Petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Section 417, 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC registered in Crime No.08/2017, subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and has to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. (ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. (iii) Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.