Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 314
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
Shivanand - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No.100042 of 2020
Decided On : 12-02-2020
Sri. S.R. Hegde, Sri. S.S. Hegde and Sri P.K. Sanningammanavar, Advocates, for the Appellant; Smt. Seema Shiva Naik, HCGP, for the Respondent
Consensual nature of sexual acts and the actions of the complainant influenced the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail.
Headnote:
Bail - Offences under IPC - Sections 451, 376, 363, 504, 506 r/w 34 - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail for offences including rape, threats, and trespassing. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had a physical relationship with the complainant and committed rape, and later threatened her to keep quiet. The trial court rejected the bail application citing ongoing investigation and the petitioner's influence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sexual acts appeared consensual as the complainant had shifted to a separate rented house where the petitioner visited her. It concluded that it cannot be stated at this stage that an offence of rape had been committed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail considering the allegations of rape and the ongoing investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the consensual nature of the sexual acts and the complainant's actions, leading to the grant of anticipatory bail with specific conditions.
Final Decision: The anticipatory bail petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2019 passed by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Dharwad in Crl.Misc.No.827/2019, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for bail was rejected in connection with Navalgund Police Station Crime No.142/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 376, 363, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant who is resident of Karlwad in Navalgund Taluk was residing with her husband Mallappa and two sons. She was attending to coolie work in the field of the petitioner and in that context the petitioner because very close with the complainant. The petitioner by taking advantage of the complainant had physical relation with the complainant. Six months prior to the filing of the complaint on 11.05.2019 at about 3.00 a.m. in the morning, the petitioner came to the house of the complainant by removing the door lock, the complainant being alone in the house, though the complainant requested the petitioner by stating that she is married having two children, the petitioner committed an act of rape and threatened that if the complainant were to inform any one he will not leave her husband and her children. Thereafter, the petitioner often came to the house of complainant and indulged in sexual intercourse with the complainant. On 18.05.2019, when the complainant had gone to attend to nature call near the lake, the petitioner came and took her in his vehicle to Hubballi and later dropped her in Gadag. After five days, the petitioner is said to have came on his motor bike and taken the complainant to a temple and raped the complainant in the neighboring field.
3. In the meanwhile, the husband of the complainant had lodged a missing complaint as regards which the petitioner is alleged to have told the complainant to give a statement before the police that she had voluntarily left the house which she did.
4. The complainant has stated that subsequently she shifted from Karlawad to Yamanur by taking a house for rent and was staying there. The petitioner is alleged to have visited her many times and had sexual intercourse, the petitioner was forcing the complainant to marry him, which was refused by the complainant. Subsequently, the petitioner along with certain other persons abused the complainant using filthy language calling her a prostitute etc. Thereafter, she contacted some elderly people who advised her to filed a complaint. Hence, a complaint came to be file by the complainant on 15.11.2019.
5. The trial Court reject the application for bail filed by the petitioner on the ground that the case is still under investigation and the Investigating Officer is yet to collect the evidence by filing his final report. The petitioner is rich and influential person in the vicinity and if he were granted anticipatory bail he may prevail upon the complainant to withdraw the complaint etc.
6. Sri S.R.Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that a comprehensive and meaningful reading of the complaint as filed would indicate that from 11.05.2019 even according to the complainant there are several times when the petitioner and the complainant are said to have involved in sexual intercourse. In fact, when the complainant stayed away from home for nearly five days and a missing complaint had been filed by her husband. She has appeared before the concerned police and stated that she had voluntarily left the house. Subsequently, the complainant had shifted her house from her matrimonial home to Yamanur by taking a house for rent, when the petitioner used to visit the complainant and had sexual intercourse. The complaint was filed only after certain persons abused her and after she was advised by certain elders to file the complaint. This complaint being filed nearly after six months after the overt act of sexual intercourse and or rape alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. Learned counsel su
