Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2383 (KAR)

Kamlesh Choudhary v. State

2020-12-23

H.P.SANDESH

body2020
ORDER : H.P. Sandesh, J. 1. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail of the petitioner in Crime No. 400/2020 of Marathahalli Police Station, Bengalurur City for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A, 376, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant and the present petitioner were colleagues working in the same organization and this petitioner left the said organization. In the said complaint, it is alleged that she was in live-in-relationship with the petitioner since five years and later, due to misunderstanding between the complainant and this petitioner, they got separated. After break up, the petitioner used to visit Marathahalli house during the midnight hours and forced her to have sex with him many times without her consent and he used to force her to come to a particular place of his choice and to have sexual intercourse. Apart from that, the petitioner and his two friends threatened her with dire consequences and used to send bad messages to her. Subsequently, the petitioner got married. Because of the act of the petitioner, the complainant was hospitalized and he continued the harassment. Hence, a complaint is lodged and a case has been registered in Crime No. 400/2020 for the offenses punishable under Sections 354, 354A, 376, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the very complaint averments discloses that they were in live-in-relationship for a long period and thereafter, due to misunderstanding between themselves, both of them got separated. The alleged incident of committing rape on her is not a recent one. Except the said offences, there are no other offences against the petitioner. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP appearing for State would submit that the complainant was subjected to medical examination and heinous offences are alleged against this petitioner and specific allegation is made in the complaint that he subjected to sexual act without her consent. 6. Except the said offences, there are no other offences against the petitioner. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP appearing for State would submit that the complainant was subjected to medical examination and heinous offences are alleged against this petitioner and specific allegation is made in the complaint that he subjected to sexual act without her consent. 6. Having heard the submissions of the respective Counsels and on perusal of the complaint, it discloses that the complainant has stated that she was living in relationship with this petitioner since five years and also the allegation that he used to visit after separating in the midnight and had sex with her without her consent. On perusal of complaint, no specific date is mentioned and also taking note of that when both are living together for a long period and also there is no medical evidence, hence, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 400/2020 of Marathahalli Police Station, Bengalurur City for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A, 376, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier. (v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.