1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3315/2022

BETWEEN:

KUMARI CHAITHRA G.O.,

D/O OMKAR MURTHY,

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

OCC: ENGINEER,

R/AT NO.1223,.

6^TH CROSS, ADARSHANGAR

HASSAN, HASSAN DIST 573201.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI BALAKRISHNA M.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

JEEVAN BHIMA NAGAR POLICE STATION,

BENGALURU CITY,

REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT BUILDING,

BENGALURU 560001.

2.

MR. BHARATH KUMAR M,

S/O MUNEGOWDA S,

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

R/AT NO.83,

BETTANAHALLI VILLAGE,

KUNDANA HOBLI,

BANGALORE RURAL DIST 562110.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.K. KRISHNA KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1,

MS. DEEPA J,ADVOCATE FOR R-2 )

2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

439(2) OF CR.P.C. TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED

28.03.2022 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND

SESSIONS

SPL.JUDGE

AT

BENGALURU

IN

CRL.MISC.NO.

2904/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS

376(n), 417, 420 AND 506 OF IPC GRANTING BAIL UNDER

SECTION

439

OF

CODE

OF

CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE

IN

CR.NO.21/2022 REGISTERED

BY

THE

RESPONDENT

NO.1

POLICE AND CANCEL THE BAIL.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10.06.2022, THIS DAY, THE COURT

PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. by the

defacto complainant praying this Court to set aside the order

dated 28.03.2022 passed by the LIII Additional City Civil and

Sessions Special Judge at Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.2904/2022,

for the offence punishable under Sections 376(n), 417, 420 and

506 of IPC.

2.

The

factual

matrix

of

the

case

is

that

the

complainant and respondent No.2 are Engineers by profession

working in the Company by name Enfotic Digital Engineering

Private Limited since 2019. In the month of February 2020,

respondent No.2 had proposed her when he called her to the

Orion Mall at Bangalore and the petitioner rejected the proposal

3

saying that she belongs to Lingayath Community and he belongs

to Vokkaliga Community and their family will not agree for the

marriage proposal. This being the scenario, gradually they

developed close relationship and on the pretext of marrying the

petitioner, respondent No.2 had committed forcible sexual

intercourse on different dates at various places against the

wishes of the petitioner and respondent No.2 had assured and

promised the petitioner that he would marry her in due course,

on this pretext, respondent No.2 had committed sexual

intercourse continuously. When the things stood thus, on

12.12.2020, respondent No.2 took the petitioner to Goa and

they stayed for three days in Goa. There he repeatedly

committed the sexual intercourse with her against her wish and

when the petitioner pressurized respondent No.2 for marriage,

he refused to marry her saying that caste will come in the way of

their marriage and further his parents will not agree for

intercaste marriage and when the petitioner further pressurized

respondent No.2, he had threatened her that he would take

away her life. Hence, the complaint is lodged.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

respondent No.2 had approached the Sessions Court invoking

4

Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and the same was rejected and

subsequently on filing of the charge-sheet, approached this

Court in Crl.P.No.1376/2022 and this Court rejected the same.

Thereafter, he was arrested and he was in judicial custody and

filed the petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and the Trial Court

was pleased to grant the bail. Hence, the present petition is

filed for setting aside the said order.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would

vehemently contend that the Trial Judge has failed to consider

the gravity, prima facie materials, specific overt-act against

respondent No.2 and the punishment stipulate