Karnataka High Court
Sundresh M R @ Sundresh vs State Of Karnataka on 23 May, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3792/2022
BETWEEN:
SUNDRESH M.R @ SUNDRESH
S/O. RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT MADDIKERE VILLAGE
GONIBEEDU HOBLI
MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU -577 132. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MANJUNATH PRASAD H.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BANAKAL POLICE STATION
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRTICT-577 113
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU -560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
S.C.NO.24/2022 (CR.NO.74/2021) OF BANAKAL P.S.,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
376(2)(n), 450, 417, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC
ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. SESSIONS AND SPL. JUDGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking
regular bail of the petitioner/accused in Crime No.74/2021 of
Banakal Police Station, Mudigere Circle, Chikkamagaluru, for the
offences punishable under Sections 417, 376(2)(n), 504 and 506
read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent-State.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that this petitioner was having acquaintance with the victim girl
and both of them were in love with each other from the past five
years and with the promise that he would marry her, he had
sexual intercourse with the victim and thereafter, he turned
hostile to the promise given to the victim and demanded dowry
to marry her. Hence case has been registered and the police
have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet.
4. This petitioner had also earlier approached this Court
by filing Crl.P.No.9293/2021 during the crime stage and this
Court rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner also
not disputed subjecting the victim girl for sexual act and matter
is under investigation and unless investigation is completed and
charge sheet is filed, bail cannot be granted and now, the
investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would bring to the
notice of this Court the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of SONU @ SUBHASH KUMAR VS. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH & ANR. reported in 2021 SAR (CRI) 403, wherein
the Apex Court has quashed the proceedings of initiation of
criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 376 of
IPC and it is observed therein that no allegation that promise to
marry given to the respondent was false at the inception and
subsequent refusal on part of the appellant to marry the
respondent, which gave rise to the registration of the FIR and
quashed the charge sheet.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently
contend that the fact that the petitioner and victim were in love
from the past five years is not in dispute and also brought to the
notice of this Court the statement given by the victim before the
Medical Officer that since two years, he had sexual intercourse
with her on several times and one year back, she had also taken
tablet for abortion given by the petitioner and it clearly disclose
that it is only a consensual sexual act and not a forcible sexual
act. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail. The counsel would also
submit that this petitioner is in custody from November, 2021
and there is no need of custodial trial.
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the very
complaint itself disclose subjecting the victim for sexual act and
the said act was done on the guise of marrying her and hence,
the judgment of the Apex Court is not applicable to the facts of
the case on hand. He also brought to the notice of this Court the
very statement made by the victim before the Medical Officer
that this petitioner had sexual intercourse on the guise that he
would marry her and there is a false promise at the very
inception itself. Hence, he is not entitled for bail.
8. Having heard the respective counsel and also on
perusal of the material available on record, particularly, medical
records, it is very clear that the victim was subjected to sexual
act and the statement made before the Doctor and Medico Legal
Examination report of Sexual Violence is also very clear that
both of them were in love since five years and the victim has
specifically alleged before the doctor that the petitioner had
promised her that he would marry her and since two years, he
had sexual intercourse with her and also gave tablet for
abortion. When such being the factual aspects of the case and
promise was made before subjecting her for sexual act that he
would marry her and when the promise is at the inception itself,
I am of the opinion that the judgment of the Apex Court cited by
the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the
facts of the case since, the Apex Court, while quashing the
proceedings observed that, no allegation that promise to marry
given to the respondent was false at the inception. The factual
aspect of the case is different and in the complaint as well as the
statement made before the doctor, the victim has categorically
stated that consent was obtained only on the guise that he
would marry her. When such being the factual aspects, it is not
a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:-
ORDER
(i) The criminal petition is rejected.
(ii) However, the observations made by this Court
shall not influence the Trial Court in
considering the matter on merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
