KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
H.P. Sandesh, J.
Shabana Taj – Petitioner
versus
State of Karnataka by Mahadevapura Police Station Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No.151 of 2024
Decided on 7.3.2024
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376, 417, 323 and 506 – Cancellation of bail – Sexual intercourse under guise of marriage – Respondent No.2 has committed offences punishable under Sections 376, 417, 323 and 506 of IPC and also had sexual intercourse continuously with petitioner on promise of marriage but he failed to marry petitioner and threatened her under roof of police powers and police department also protected him without complying with directions given by this Court which clearly shows abuse of process and playing of fraud on Court in obtaining favourable order in his favour and getting an order by different forums by suppressing material facts which leads to the extent of polluting stream of justice which came in way of administration of justice – Order granting bail set aside – Respondent No.2 directed to pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within a period of two weeks. (Paras 35 and 36)
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C praying this Court to cancel the bail order dated 30.06.2023 passed in favour of respondent No.2 in Crl.Misc.No.5631/2023 by the LIII Additional City Civil and Session Special Judge, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Section 376, 417, 323 and 506 of IPC registered by the Mahadevapura Police Station in Cr.No.80/2022.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner before the Trial Court that she has filed a private complaint against respondent No.2 stating that respondent No.2 is working as a police constable in the very same police station i.e., Mahadevapura Police Station. He came in contact with the complainant in connection with the issue of vacating the premises and he has promised the victim that he would marry her and on that guise, respondent No.2 subjected the complainant for sexual act continuously from 2019 till February 2022. When respondent No.2 has not married the complainant, on 14.02.2022, she gave the complaint before respondent No.1-police station. It the case of the complainant that firstly, on 14.02.2022, she had approached the Police Inspector at Mahadevapura Police Station alleging cheating and subjecting her for sexual act by respondent No.2 from 2019 to 2022 and when the action was not taken, the complainant had approached the Police Commissioner and when the Police Commissioner also failed to take any action against respondent No.2, once again she gave another complaint on 24.02.2022 before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru and on the said complaint also, action was not taken. Hence, without any other alternative, the complainant had approached the jurisdictional Court by filing a private complaint and the learned Magistrate referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, respondent No.2 had approached the Sessions Court by filing a petition in Crl.Misc.No.3084/2022 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C and the Sessions Judge granted the anticipatory bail on 04.04.2022. The said order was challenged before this Court by the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4320/2022 and this Court in elaborate discussion, taking into note of the material available on record, cancelled the bail granted by the Trial Court vide order dated 01.07.2022.
3. It is also contended in the present petition that when this Court has cancelled the bail, respondent No.2 by suppressing the said fact, had filed the writ petition in W.P.No.13787/2022 before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking for quashing of FIR filed in Cr.No.80/2022 wherein he had obtained an order of stay on 25.07.2022. Thereafter, the complainant came on record and narrated all the material facts before this Court and accordingly, this Court vacated the stay order granted on 25.07.2022 vide order dated 15.03.2023 wherein an observation is made that by suppressing the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.4320/2022, he had obtained an order of stay of the investigation. The counsel also would vehemently contend that respondent No.2 had played fraud upon this Court by suppressing the material facts.
4. The counsel brought to notice of this Court that this Court vide order dated 15.03.2023 having noticed the suppression of facts and playing fraud on the Court, vacated the interim order when the submission was made by the counsel for petitioner that respondent No.2 is absconding and also complainant counsel brought to notice of this Court that he has managed to evade arrest despite passage of four months. This Court held that it prima facie appears that the concerned have laid a protective umbrella to the petitioner, to evade such arrest, only because respondent No.2 belonged to the police department. Hence, directed to the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the jurisdiction to submit an explanation before this Court as to why respondent No.2 is not taken into custody despite the clear order of this Court that it should be implemented forthwith and the explanation
Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Moti Lal Songara vs. Prem Prakash @ Pappu and Anr.
Chandra Shashi vs. Anil Kumar Verma
Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
The court emphasized the limitations on the court's power to cancel bail and the need for strong and substantive reasons to arrest a person who is set at liberty by admitting him to bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to cancel bail based on fraudulent misrepresentation and the importance of supervening circumstances in such decisions.
Suppression of material fact vitiates the relief obtained and can be a ground for canceling bail. The distinction between rejection of bail at the initial stage and cancellation of bail after it has ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for the trial court to consider the gravity and seriousness of the offences, follow established parameters for granting bail, and distingu....
The court has the authority to cancel bail if the order suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice, and if the accused misuses their liberty, interferes with the investigati....
Cancellation of Bail – Court while granting bail has not considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, severity of the punishment in the event of bail, likelihood of repetition of the offence....
Bail granted for a bailable offence can be cancelled if the accused misuses their liberty by engaging in similar criminal activities or interfering with the investigation. The decision also highlight....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.