Heard Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Maya T.R., learned

High Court Government Pleader.

2.

The present petition is filed under Section

439 of Cr.P.C., with the following prayer:

“Wherefore, it is hereby prayed that this

Hon'ble court be pleased to allow the above

Criminal Petition and order to release the

petitioner on regular bail in S.C.No.170/2022

(Crime No.59/2022) registered by the Raichur

Women

Police

Station,

for

the

offences

punishable U/s 376, 506 of IPC, pending on

3

the file of II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC

Court at Raichur, in the interest of justice and

equity.”

3.

Brief facts which are necessary for disposal

of this petition are as under:

Victim lady lodged a complaint with the Raichur

Women police on 18.07.2022 which was registered in

Crime No.59/2022 for the offences punishable under

Sections 376, 323, 354, 504, 506 read with Section

34 of IPC against the petitioner and others.

4.

Gist of the complaint averments reveal that

that victim lady is a beautician and she developed

intimacy with one Sunilkumar S/o Jindappa and

intimacy turned into a love affair and in the guise of

marrying the victim lady, the petitioner said to have

taken her on his motorcycle to a lonely place on

28.01.2022 at about 10.00 a.m. and had forcible

sexual intercourse with the victim lady. Again on

4

18.04.2022, at 4.30 pm petitioner took the victim lady

near pump house and had forcible sexual intercourse

and thereafter. He refused to marry her. Based on the

complaint, the police have registered a case and

conducted detailed investigation and filed the charge

sheet against the petitioner alone for the offence

punishable under Sections 376 of IPC.

5.

The attempt made by the petitioner to seek

grant of bail was turned down by the I-Additional

Sessions Judge, Raichur in S.C.No.170/2022 by order

dated 09.11.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner has

approached this Court.

6.

Reiterating the grounds urged in the bail

petition,

Sri

Chaitanyakumar

Chandriki,

learned

counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that

victim being aged 32 years was a consenting party

and therefore, no offence whatsoever is made out

5

against the petitioner so as to continue accused in the

judicial custody.

7.

He further pointed out that material on

record would not warrant custodial interrogation and

even assuming that case of the prosecution is to be

accepted, mere breach of promise to marry would not

ipso facto make out any offence and sought for

allowing the petition.

8.

Per contra, Smt. Maya T.R., learned High

Court Government Pleader contended that in the guise

of marrying the victim lady, accused repeatedly had

forcible sexual intercourse with the victim lady and

thereafter, he has breached the promise of marriage

resulting in commission of the offence by the accused

under Section 376 of IPC. While her statement being

recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she has

specifically narrated that she is not a consenting

6

party, accused had forcible sexual intercourse with the

victim

lady

and

prima

facie

the

accused

has

committed the offence alleged against him and sought

for dismissal of the petition.

9.

In view of the rival contentions of the

parties, this Court perused the material on record

meticulously.

10.

Admittedly, in the case on hand, the age of

the victim lady is 32 years and accused is her relative.

The complainant is a beautician and she developed

intimacy with the petitioner. There are two separate

incidents where accused said to have forcible sexual

intercourse with the victim lady. What prevented the

victim lady to immediately demand for the marriage of

the accused with her after the first incident is a

question that is to be adjudicated before the trial

Court. Further, as is rightly contended by learned

7

counsel for the petitioner that mere breach of promise

would not ipso facto make out offence.

11.

Whether at all, victim lady is a consenting

party is a question that is to be decided by the trial

Court after full