Mr. Manoj Kumar M R vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 566 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 13 T H DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1933 OF 2021


BETWEEN:

Mr. Manoj Kumar M R
S/o M R Ranganath,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at no.39/1, 2nd Cross,
Near SBI Bank, Kamakshipalya,
Bang alore

(Now in Judicial custody,
Central Prison Bangalore
                                             ...Appellant

(By Sri Hasmath Pasha, Sr. Advocate for
    Sri Nasir Ali, Advocate)


AND:

1.   State of karnataka
     Byatarayanapura Police Station,
     Bang alore City,
     (Rep. by Ld State Pub lic Prosecutor,
     High Court of Karnataka,
     Bang alore)

2.     Miss Nand adeep a
       D/o Kuberrapp a,
       Aged about 27 years,
       R/at no.1301, Pride ap artment,
       'D' Block, Opp. BHEL,
       Deep anjalinag ar,
                           :: 2 ::


      Mysore road,
      Bangalore City-76
                                       ...Respondents
(By Sri K.S.Abhijith, HCGP for R1;
    Smt. Dhanalakshmi M, Advocate for R2)

     This Criminal Appeal is filed und er Section 14-A
of SC/ST (POA) Act of Cr.P.C., praying to set asid e the
Order       dated        21.12.2021       passed       in
Crl.Mis.No.11078/2021 passed b y the Court below and
conseq uently    enlarg e   him   on   bail   in   Crime
No.253/2021     of   Byatarayanapura    Police   Station,
Bang alore City, which is pend ing in Spl.C.C.1851/2021
on the file of Hon'ble LXX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judg e and Special Judge for SC and ST Act,
Bang alore City, for offences under sections 376, 313,
307, 417 of Ind ian Penal Code and und er Sections
3(1)(w)(i)(ii) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

     This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission
through video conferencing this d ay, the Court mad e
the following:

                      JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed under Section 14-A of

the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 ('SC/ST Act' for

short). The accused has preferred this appeal

challenging the order dated 21.12.2021 passed by

the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge

and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.71), in :: 3 ::

Crl.Misc.No.11078/2021 rejecting his application

for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Sri. Hasmath Pasha, learned

Senior counsel for the appellant, Sri. K.S.Abhijith,

learned High Court Government Pleader for the

first respondent - State and Smt. Dhanalakshmi M,

learned counsel for the second respondent.

3. Based on a report made by the second

respondent, FIR came to be registered in Crime

No.253/2021 by the first respondent - Police for

the offences punishable under Sections 376, 313,

307, 417 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections

3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(n), 3(2)(v) of

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act 1989. Investigation was taken up

and charge sheet has been filed now.

4. The allegations are that the appellant,

while working as a Manager in Bajaj Finance

Limited came in contact with the second :: 4 ::

respondent who was also working in the same

company. It is alleged that as they were working

together acquaintance developed between them.

The appellant told the second respondent that he

was loving her, one day he took her to a hotel

called Dr. Rajkumar International Hotel,

Gandhinagar, Bengaluru. They spent a night in

that hotel. At that time, the appellant told her that

he would marry her and had forcibly intercourse

with her. It is also stated that the appellant

threatened that in case she would not respond to

his call, he would upload the videos of their

intimate moments in the social media and

threatening so, he used to have sexual intercourse

with her. She became pregnant in the year 2019,

and this was brought to the notice of the

appellant. The appellant took the second

respondent to Kangaroo Care Hospital and forcibly

got the pregnancy terminated. Later, he kept her

in a rented house and used to go there and have :: 5 ::

intercourse with her very often. In the year 2020,

she became pregnant once again and the

pregnancy was terminated for the second time. On

10.07.2021, it is stated that when the appellant

visited the second respondent's residence, he told

her that he would not marry her as she belonged

to Madiga caste. It is also alleged that the

appellant took the charger wire and tried to

strangulate her. She later tried to commit suicide

becoming desperate in life. Thus, making all these

allegations, she made a report to the Police on

06.09.2021.

5. Sri. Hasmath Pasha, learned Senior

counsel would argue that in the report made by

the second respondent, the last incident said to

have taken place is shown as 10.07.2021, but

complaint was made to the Police on 06.09.2021.

FIR is a clear attempt of afterthought. He refers to

a document to show that after 10.07.2021 in the

month of August 2021, the appellant approached :: 6 ::

Vanitha Sahayavani when he found it difficult to

bear the torture of the second respondent. No

doubt, the contents of the report and the charge

sheet indicate that they spent intimate moments,

but it also shows that the second respondent

might have had consensual intercourse with the

appellant. Even when they went to the hospital for

the purpose of terminating the pregnancy, it was

disclosed to the Doctors that the second

respondent was the wife of the appellant, and she

gave consent for termination of the pregnancy.

The age of the second respondent is 27 years and

in this view, the relationship between the

appellant and the second respondent could be

consensual. She knew the consequences of what

she was doing. These being the facts and

circumstances, at this stage, the appellant has

been able to make out a prima facie case for grant

of bail. The appellant has been in custody since

07.09.2021. Investigation is already completed.

:: 7 ::

The appellant is ready to abide by any condition

that the Court may impose on him and in this

view, bail should be granted. It is necessary that

this appeal should be allowed and the appellant

admitted to bail.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader

submits that the second respondent has given

statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C which

discloses that she was subjected to forcible

intercourse by the appellant. Her pregnancy was

also terminated forcibly. There are ample

materials indicating the involvement of the

appellant. He refused to marry the second

respondent the moment he came to know that she

belonged to the scheduled caste. Therefore, there

is no case for granting bail.

7. The learned counsel for the second

respondent also submits that the appellant used to

have intercourse with the second respondent by :: 8 ::

subjecting her to threat. On several occasions, the

appellant had forcible intercourse with the second

respondent even though she was unwilling for the

same. Her pregnancy was also terminated forcibly.

The appellant developed relationship with the

second respondent in the guise of marrying her. It

was a false promise to marry. In this view, the

offence under Section 3(2) of SC/ST Act is made

out. She also submits that because the appellant

came to know about the case of the second

respondent, he refused to marry her and this

shows offence under the SC/ST Act being

committed. Therefore, it is her submission that if

bail is granted, the appellant will again resort to

threatening the second respondent. Appeal is

therefore to be dismissed.

8. Having heard both sides and perusing the

charge sheet, it prima facie appears that the

relationship between the appellant and the second

respondent since the year 2018 is consensual. The :: 9 ::

age of the second respondent is 27 years. She

knew the consequences of having intercourse with

the appellant. The appellant has produced a

document which shows that both the appellant and

the second respondent went to hospital for the

purpose of terminating the pregnancy and at that

time, they introduced themselves to be husband

and wife. It is clearly stated in the letter issued by

the Kangaroo Care Hospital to the Assistant Police

Commissioner, Kengeri Sub-Division, Bengaluru on

04.11.2021 that the appellant and the second

respondent signed Form I and Form C for the

purpose of terminating the pregnancy. They

introduced themselves as husband and wife. They

visited the hospital two or three times for the

purpose of termination of pregnancy. It appears

that she got her second pregnancy terminated

voluntarily. So, if all these aspects are taken into

consideration, it is difficult to arrive at a

conclusion at this stage that the appellant used to :: 10 ::

have sexual intercourse with the second

respondent forcibly.

9. If according to the report made by the

appellant it was on 10.07.2021 that an incident

took place and the appellant is said to have

refused to marry the second respondent coming to

know her caste and then attempted on her life. If

this incident were to be true, it is not

understandable as to why she kept quite till

06.09.2021 without approaching the Police. A

document produced by the appellant shows that in

the month of August 2021, the appellant

approached Vanitha Sahayavani to make a

complaint against the second respondent being

unable to bear her torture. If this aspect is taken

into consideration it may be stated at this stage

that probably coming to know about the complaint

made by the appellant to Vanitha Sahayavani, she

might have decided to approach Police on

06.09.2021.

:: 11 ::

10. Therefore, in the light of all these facts

and circumstances, it is not difficult to arrive at a

conclusion that the appellant has been able to

make out a case for grant of bail. The Special

Court ought to have considered these aspects of

the matter at the time of deciding the application

for bail. It appears that very routinely the Court

below has come to conclusion for denying the

appellant's application for bail. The order of the

trial Court cannot be sustained for these reasons.

Therefore the following:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed.

The order passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.71), dated 21.12.2021 in Crl.Misc.No.11078/2021 on the application of the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is set aside. The said application is allowed.

:: 12 ::

The appellant is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs only) and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The appellant is also subjected to following conditions:-

     i.    He      shall   not    tamper       with        the
           evidence         collected          by          the
           investigating       officer   and    threaten
           the witnesses.

ii. He shall regularly appear before the trial court till conclusion of the trial.

iii. He shall not get himself involved in any other criminal case/s in future.

iv. If any complaint is received by the second respondent about an attempt by the appellant to influence her, the same will be viewed seriously for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RB