The main legal point established is that the court will consider supervening circumstances or conduct of the accused post bail to justify cancellation, and will require evidence of violation of bail conditions.

ORDER :

The petitioner/complainant has filed this petition under Section 439(2) read with 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail granted to Respondent No.1/accused by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru in Criminal Misc. No.3/2021 vide order dated 21.01.2022 in Crime No.71/2020 of Women Police Station, Mangaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 354 and 506 of IPC

2. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that, the petitioner/complainant has married to the one Shivaranjan, the son of Respondent No.1/Accused-Laxminarayana Bhat in the year 2015. Since January 2020, accused/Respondent No.2 started sexually harassing the petitioner/complainant. According to the complainant, on 09.12.2020, around 11.30 a.m., accused/Respondent No.2 has committed rape on the petitioner/complainant for the first time in the guest room of the house. It is also alleged that, on 11.12.2020 around 11.30 a.m., he again committed rape on petitioner/complainant for the second time in the pump-set of the Farm House from back side. It is also alleged that, initially, accused/Respondent No.2 was seeking sexual favour from the complainant, who is the Daughter-in-law and she brought it to the notice of her mother-in-law, who in turn, advised her that, there is nothing wrong in continuing such relationship. However, when she brought it to the notice of her husband, he did not believe this aspect and asserted that she is mentally imbalanced and again, when the complainant narrated this matter to her husband, he did not trust her. In the meanwhile, her mother-in-law quarreled with her on the ground that, she has brought it to the notice of her son, who is the husband of the petitioner/complainant. The husband of the complainant without believing her, on the ground that she is mentally imbalanced, left her in her parental house on 20.12.2020. Subsequently, on 29.12.2020 the petitioner/complainant has lodged a complaint in this regard with the concerned police.

3. The Respondent No.1/accused was arrested and he was remanded to judicial custody. Later on, he moved for regular bail before the learned Sessions Judge and the same was allowed on 21.01.2021. The said order is being now challenged by the complainant/petitioner herein seeking cancellation of bail.

4. Heard the arguments advanced by Sri. P.P. Hegde, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri. Venkatesh Somareddi, appearing for the petitioner/complainant and Sri. Anandarama K., the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1/accused. Perused the records.

5. The petition was seriously contested by the Respondent No.1/accused. In fact, the learned HCGP has submitted that the State is sailing with the complainant/petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant would contend that accused/Respondent No.1 being father-in-law of the petitioner/complainant, has committed brutal rape on her twice and even her mother-in-law asked her to get adjusted to him, and, her husband did not believe her. He would contend that, 20.12.2020, she was left in her parental house and on the ground that, she lost her mental balance and on 29.12.2020 she lodged a complaint. It is further asserted that, due to this incident, the marriage bond was retrievably broken and initially she filed a petition under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘D.V Act’ for short). But, subsequently, she has obtained consent divorce decree. It is further asserted that, while granting bail, the learned Sessions Judge did not consider the social impact and he has only considered the ground of age related ailment and as such, the order is perverse. It is asserted that, when serious allegations are made and prima facie case has been made out, the Sessions Court ought to have been slow in granting bail. It is also further contended that, the act of Respondent No.1/accused is a ghastly, inhuman and barbaric. The Court has failed to consider his release on bail would be danger