Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 624 (KAR)

Prashanth Patel v. State of Karnataka

2022-05-12

MAHESHAN NAGAPRASANNA

body2022
JUDGMENT Maheshan Nagaprasanna, J. - The petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of Crime No. 64 of 2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 417 of the IPC for it having been turned down by the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3357 of 2022. Petitioner is accused No. 1 in the subject crime. 2. Heard Sri. S. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. H.S. Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State, 3. Brief facts germane are as follows: Ms. Ruthu Helan registers a complaint against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 417 and 420 of the IPC. The allegation in the complaint was that the petitioner and the complainant were acquaintances who met when they were working in the same establishment and the petitioner was her team leader. It is alleged that the petitioner proposed to marry the complainant which was initially rejected by the complainant but later on several promises being made in front of family and friends by the petitioner, she acceded to the request of marriage with the petitioner. After such assurances, it is alleged that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions and at several places. After all this, it is alleged, the petitioner refused to marry the complainant and refused to accompany her to any social gatherings. When the petitioner refused to marry the complainant, complaint aforesaid is registered on 21.03.2022 in Crime No. 64 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC. 4. On registration of the crime, the petitioner files a petition seeking anticipatory bail at the hands of the learned Sessions Judge who by his order dated 13-04-2022 declines to grant anticipatory bail on the ground that prima facie case is made out by the prosecution against the petitioner and the investigation is yet to get completed and there is also a reasonable apprehension that the petitioner is likely to threaten witnesses. It is the rejection of anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend that whatever acts that have taken place between the petitioner and the complainant were all consensual. It is the rejection of anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend that whatever acts that have taken place between the petitioner and the complainant were all consensual. Breach of promise of marriage cannot become an offence under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC is the settled law laid down by this Court in D. Ramesh Sinha v. State Of Karnataka-Criminal Revision Petition No. 233 of 2020 which has been reiterated in the case of Venkatesh And Others. v. State of Karnataka-Criminal Petition No. 5865 of 2021 and would submit that the petitioner is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that since the matter is still under investigation and the petitioner may be required for custodial interrogation at any time and he is to be taken into custody and as such, he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and would seek to defend the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The complainant in her complaint narrates that the petitioner and the complainant had physical relationship at several places from October, 2020 to November, 2021 on the promise of marriage. The places that they travelled and had physical relationship are narrated in graphic details in the complaint. The crux of the complaint is that the petitioner has cheated the complainant and had sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage and, therefore, breach of promise of marriage has become a crime in Crime No. 64 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC. This Court, in the cases relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has held that promise of marriage would not attract an offence of cheating under Sections 417 or 420 of the IPC. This Court, in the cases relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has held that promise of marriage would not attract an offence of cheating under Sections 417 or 420 of the IPC. In the light of the judgments rendered by this Court, the offence of cheating itself cannot be held against the petitioner to be liable for punishment under Sections 417 or 420 of the IPC for having breached the promise of marriage. Therefore, in my considered view, the petitioner would be entitled for grant of anticipatory bail by imposing stringent conditions. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER This Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 64 of 2022 of Bommanahalli Police Station and proceedings pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, on the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court; (ii) The petitioner shall be regular in appearing before the Court on every date of hearing as also, when called upon to do so by the trial Court; (iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or cause any threat to any of the prosecution witness/s in any manner. (iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called and submit all documents and details as may be called upon by the Investigating Officer. (v) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission. (vi) In the event of violation of any of the above terms, the above bail shall stand automatically cancelled. The observations made above are only for the purpose of consideration of the application for anticipatory bail and the same shall not in any manner influence the trial. The trial Court shall consider the case on its merits and without being influenced by this order.