Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1647 (KAR)

Ranjith R v. State Of Karnataka

2020-09-02

K.NATARAJAN

body2020
JUDGMENT K.Natarajan, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting of anticipatory bail in Cr.No.149/2020 registered by Hebbagodi Police Station, Bangalore Rural District for the offence punishable under Sections 354 of IPC and Section 67 of Information and Technology Act, 2008. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint filed by one Smt.Kanthamma before the Police on 15.05.2020, the respondent Police registered the case. It is alleged by the complainant that she came in contact with the petitioner and they both became close. In the month of December 2019, the petitioner took the complainant in his bike and went to a hotel to celebrate his birthday party. At that time, he made her to drink some juice due to which, she become partially unconscious. At that time, the petitioner took photographs of the complainant from his mobile phone in different angles and kept the complainant in the hotel on that day. Thereafter, on the next day, he brought her back and dropped her. Due to which, she drank the acid kept in the bathroom and was shifted to the hospital. After receipt of the complaint, the police registered the case for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and the police is making hectic effort to arrest the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner moved a bail petition before the Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc.No.670/2020, which came to be dismissed. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and a false case has been registered against him. Even otherwise, absolutely there is no material against the petitioner to show that he has outraged the modesty of the complainant. The offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment. The petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for grant of bail. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objected the bail petition. 6. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the record, which shows that the complainant went along with the petitioner and attended the birthday party. The petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for grant of bail. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objected the bail petition. 6. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the record, which shows that the complainant went along with the petitioner and attended the birthday party. It appears that, on that day the petitioner took photographs of the complainant in various angles and by next day, the petitioner brought the complainant back and left her in December 2019. Subsequently, in May 2020, the complainant is said to have consumed the toilet cleaner and was shifted to the hospital where the police received the complaint and registered the case. The offence is triable by the Magistrate and not punishable with death or imprisonment of life. The complainant is already discharged from the Hospital. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I hold that it is a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the prosecution may be safeguarded by imposing certain conditions and if bail is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution, . Hence, the following; Order The Criminal Petition is allowed. The respondent-Police of Hebbagodi is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event on his arrest in Cr.No.149/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and Section 67 of Information and Technology Act, 2008, subject to the following conditions; 1) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Magistrate, as the case may be. ii) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iii) The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences. iv) The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesess directly or indirectly. v) The Petitioner shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. vi) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for the purpose of investigation.