IMPORTANT POINT
The court denied anticipatory bail due to the gravity of sexual offences and prima facie evidence against the petitioner, highlighting risks of witness tampering.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner/accused in custody concerning Crime No. 2 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(2)(k), 354A, 354B, 354C, 506 of the IPC and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, 2008 and pending before the LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore city, is knocking at the doors of this Court seeking his release on grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for it having been turned down by the Court of Sessions.

2. Heard Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Prof. Ravi Varma Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:

A complaint comes to be registered on 05-05-2024 by the first informant narrating that she is the resident of K.R. Nagar Taluk, Mysore District and her family members are daily wage workers. About 8 years ago she along with her husband had joined the farm house of H.D. Revanna, father of the petitioner at Gannikada, Holenarsipura as household workers. The job was secured through Satish Babanna. It is alleged in the narrative that prior to the lock down in the year 2021 when she was cleaning the room at Gannikada house, the petitioner comes and enquires about the cleaning and asks her to bring drinking water. When she gets the water into the room, the petitioner is said to have locked the room and made sexual advances towards her and even tried to undress her. She resisted by pleading not to do so. But, without heeding to the pleadings, the petitioner is said to have sexually assaulted her. Not stopping at that, the petitioner is said to have recorded the happenings on his phone and threatened the lady that if she would reveal the incident to anyone, he would share the video with her son.

4. It is further alleged that she avoided to go to work whenever the petitioner was coming to Gannikada. Later she along with other maids came to Bangalore house at the instance of the mother of the accused Smt. Bhavani Revanna. It is said that even in Bangalore, the petitioner committed similar acts of sexual assault upon her. Thereafter, again for the third time petitioner repeated the same act on the victim when he had come to Gannikada farm house. Due to the said incident she was distressed and did not disclose it to anyone on the ground that her grown up daughter was yet to be married. When the news about the petitioner became to circulate she gets the courage to register the complaint and by then her daughter also had got married. Therefore, the crux of the complaint that repeated sexual assault which would become an offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC was alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner gets arrested in one of the crimes, as four crimes are registered against him. He also prefers an application seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. all of them are turned down. Both the applications under Sections 438 and 439 of the Cr.P.C. are challenged before this Court in different petitions as they arise out of different crimes.

5. The learned senior counsel Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi appearing for the petitioner would project the case to be hit by gross delay. It is his submission that the incidents that have happened between 01-01-2021 and 31-01-2022 are complained of on 05-05-2024 without any explanation for delay. It is his submission that the Apex Court in plethora of judgments has considered the aspect of delay of 5 to 7 months and has set aside those convictions for offences punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. He would further contend that the charge sheet is now filed. The petitioner would not be required for any custodial interrogation and, therefore, he should be granted anticipatory bail in the subject case, notwithstanding him being denied regular bail.

6. Per contra, the Special Public Prosecutor Prof. Ravi Varma Kumar would vehemently refute the submissions and by taking through the document