Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 45758
Reserved on : 19.09.2024
Pronounced on : 21.10.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8514 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
PRAJWAL REVANNA
S/O H.D.REVANNA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
KASABA HOBLI
PADUVALAHIPPE
HASSAN PADULAHIPPE
KARNATAKA – 573 211.
ALSO AT:
83, “SHIVASMITHA”
RANOJI RAO ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU – 560 004.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRABHULING K.NAVADGI, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI ARUN G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY CID POLICE
BENGALURU 560 001
(INVESTIGATED BY
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM
CID, BENGALURU)
(REPRESENTED BY
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU)
... RESPONDENT
(BY PROF. RAVI VARMA KUMAR, SPL.PP A/W
SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, SPL.PP)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI PRABHULING K.NAVADGI, SRI ARUN G.
For the Respondents: PROF. RAVI VARMA KUMAR, SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA
The court held that delay in filing a complaint does not negate the existence of a prima facie case for anticipatory bail in cases involving threats and outraging modesty.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354A, 354B, 354D, and 506 - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 66E and 67 - Anticipatory bail - The petitioner seeks bail for alleged offences of outraging modesty and threatening a woman for sexual acts, which were repeatedly asserted over five years, and for circulating obscene images; the delay in filing the complaint was contested - The court held that the delay does not negate the prima facie case against the petitioner and indicated societal shame associated with the offence. The bail petition was dismissed due to existing prima facie material and concerns regarding potential threat to witnesses. (Paras 1-9)
(B) Anticipatory Bail - Considerations - The court ruled that the nature of the allegations, including repeated pressure and outrageous acts, justified denial of bail, emphasizing that the offence of circulating obscene material is a serious concern for societal values. (Paras 14-15)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C., (482 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST BY SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM CID, BENGALURU IN CR.NO.3/2024 OF CYBER CRIME P.S., CID, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 354(A), 354(B), 354(D) AND 506 OF IPC AND SEC.66E AND 67 OF I.T ACT 2008 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XLII ADDL.C.M.M AT BENGALURU BY ALLOWING THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.438 OF CR.P.C.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 19.09.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime No.3 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 354A, 354B, 354D and 506 of the IPC and Sections 66E and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is knocking at the doors of this Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., for it having been turned down by the LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Criminal Miscellaneous No.6387 of 2024.
2. Heard Sri Prabuling K. Navadgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Prof Ravi Varma Kumar, learned senior counsel and Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:
The subject crime is registered on a complaint filed by the victim, XXXXX on 10-06-2024. The allegation in the complaint is that the victim intended to get her son admitted to a prestigious school in Hassan and in that regard had sought the assistance of the petitioner/accused No.1 who was then a Member of Parliament from Hassan Constituency. It is said that the petitioner had taken the victim’s Mobile number and used to call her from different numbers and had also called her through video call and prevailed upon her to disrobe herself and get naked in a video call. It is said that she had resisted and on such resistance the petitioner has threatened her with dire consequences. Due to such threatening she disrobed herself when she was on a video call and repeated the act several times. Looking at the disrobe victim, it is alleged that the petitioner used to masturbate himself. Later on 21-04-2024 it is the allegation that she came to know of four photographs pertaining to the accused had gone viral in social media in which she was seen in intimate positions. Based upon the said complaint, on 10-06-2024 a crime comes to be registered in Crime No.3 of 2024 for the aforesaid offences. On registration of the crime and commencement of investigation, the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The said petition comes to be rejected by an order of the concerned Court dated 24-07-2024. Rejection of the said petition seeking anticipatory bail has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition seeking grant of anticipatory bail.
4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi would seek to contend that the complainant in the case at hand is a person who is known to the petitioner. In the month of October, 2019 she is said to have approached the petitioner seeking help to put her son into a school. Five years passed by and the complaint is registered after 5 years of the alleged acts. If the acts that were alleged were to be true or forced upon, the victim ought to have registered the crime immediately; not waited for 5 long years and then registered the crime on the ground that on 21-04-2024 she comes to know of four images involving the petitioner had gone viral and in one of the pictures she was shown with the petitioner. The victim twines the story that her husband informed her about the picture and fearing disturbance in the family she registered the complaint. The learned senior counsel would emphasize on the fact that delay would vitiate entire proceedings and would seek grant o
