Karnataka High Court
Navyashree vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 June, 2023
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:20011
CRL.P No. 311 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 311 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
NAVYASHREE,
D/O RAMACHANDRA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT KARIKALADODD,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIRAGUPPI ALLAYYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
by VINUTHA B S
Location: High
HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION,
Court of BENGALURU - 560 001,
Karnataka
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. RAJKUMAR TAKALE,
S/O DONDIBA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO. 53,
VIDYANAGAR,
BELAGAVI
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:20011
CRL.P No. 311 of 2023
BELAGAVI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 590 019
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR1;
SRI. K B NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439(2) OF CR.PC PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 06.12.2022 IN
CRL.MISC.NO.11141/2022 C/W CRL.MISC.NO.10407/2022
PASSED BY THE XLV. ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46) AND CANCEL THE ANTICIPATORY
BAIL GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN
CRL.MISC.NO.7528/2022 PASSED BY THE LXV ADDL.CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU, FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 354C OF IPC AND SEC.66(e) OF I.T ACT 2000,
REGISTERED CASE IN CR.NO.104/2022 BY THE RESPONDENT
POLICE AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 HIGH GROUNDS
POLICE TO ARREST THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN THE ABOVE
CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Grant of anticipatory bail to respondent No.2/accused by
the learned Session Judge in Crl. Misc. No.7528/2022 is sought
to be cancelled by the petitioner/complainant on the ground
that the accused has misused the liberty granted to him and
violated the conditions.
2. Contention has been raised that subsequent to the
release of respondent No.2, he has held life threat to the
petitioner and in this connection she has lodged a complaint at
NC: 2023:KHC:20011
CRL.P No. 311 of 2023
Channapatna Town Police Station and a case is also registered
in Crime No.103/2022 for offences punishable under Sections
506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as 'IPC' for short).
[
3. The petitioner and respondent No.2 seem to be
entangled with several disputes. There are complaints lodged
against each other and one of such complaints lodged by the
petitioner against respondent No.2, is registered in Crime
No.108/2022 of APMC Yard Police Station, Belagavi alleging
various offences under the IPC including an offence under
Section 376(2)(n) and also under the Information Technology
Act, 2000.
4. The material placed on record would reveal that in
the said case, respondent No.2 was enlarged on anticipatory
bail by the Darward Bench in Crl.P. No.102294/2022 vide order
dated 12.09.2022. The said order was challenged by the
petitioner before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Criminal Diary
No.29750/2022) wherein, the Apex Court dismissed the said
SLP vide order dated 26.09.2022. Further, Crl.P No.
NC: 2023:KHC:20011
CRL.P No. 311 of 2023
103249/2022 filed by the petitioner seeking cancellation of
anticipatory bail also came to be dismissed by this Court vide
order dated 03.03.2023.
5. It is seen that even prior to registration of Crime
No.108/2022 by the APMC Yard Police, there was a complaint
lodged by respondent No.2 on 18.07.2022 against the
petitioner registered in Crime 105/2022, alleging offences
punishable under Sections 384, 448, 504, 506 read with
Section 34 of IPC before the said Police Station. It is submitted
that the Police have submitted a 'B' report in the said case.
The fact remains that respondent No.2 lodged the complaint on
18.07.2022 and subsequently on 23.07.2022, petitioner lodged
a complaint against him before the said Police Station alleging
offences under the IPC as well as under the Information
Technology Act, 2000. Grant of anticipatory bail in the said
case has been set at rest, since the SLP filed by the petitioner
challenging the same has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court.
6. Insofar as the present case is concerned, petitioner
is seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to
NC: 2023:KHC:20011
CRL.P No. 311 of 2023
respondent No.2 by the Sessions Court in Crime No. 104/2022
registered by High Grounds P.S., Bengaluru on the ground that
he has violated the conditions by holding threats to the
petitioner.
7. The petitioner as well as the State preferred
separate petitions before the Sessions Court seeking
cancellation of bail in Crl.Misc. No.11141/2022 and Crl.Misc.
No.10407/2022. The learned Sessions Judge having
appreciated the contentions raised by both the parties has
dismissed the petitions, by a common order dated 16.12.2022.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would strongly
contend that registration of case against respondent No.2 by
the Channapatna Police in Crime No. 103/2022 subsequent to
grant of anticipatory bail is a valid ground for cancellation of
bail and therefore contends that the order rejecting the prayer
seeking cancellation of bail by the learned Sessions Judge is
liable to be set aside.
NC: 2023:KHC:20011
CRL.P No. 311 of 2023
9. I have Perused the averments of the complaint filed
by the petitioner leading to the registration of Crime
No.104/2022 at High Grounds Police Station. The police have
registered the said case for offence punishable under Section
354C of IPC and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology
Act, 2000. Charge sheet has been filed in the said case. I have
also Perused the conditions imposed by the learned sessions
Judge in Crl.Misc No. 7528/22 dated 06.08.2022, while
releasing respondent No.2 on anticipatory bail. One of the
conditions stipulates that he shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses in any manner and shall not intimidate
the complainant. In the subsequent complaint dated
19.10.2022 registered in Crime No.103/2022 at Channapatna
Town P.S., on the basis of which the petitioner is seeking
cancellation of bail, it is alleged that the petitioner/complainant
has received threatening calls from different mobile numbers
and she is receiving such threatening calls every day. In the
complaint, several mobile/sim numbers have been mentioned,
which according to the learned counsel for respondent No.2
does not belong to the said respondent. It is contended by the
learned counsel for petitioner that respondent No.2 is
NC: 2023:KHC:20011
CRL.P No. 311 of 2023
intimidating the complainant by making calls from different sim
numbers and through others. However, the investigation is
pending. Merely because a complaint has been now lodged
against respondent No.2, making certain allegations and a
case has been registered against him, that itself is not a ground
to cancel the bail already granted to him unless and until it is
substantiated by some credible evidence. At this stage, it
cannot be said that it was this petitioner, who has made those
calls through others or that he has induced or threatened the
complainant etc.
10. The learned Sessions Judge while considering the
prayer seeking cancellation of bail has referred to the
judgments pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard
to the principles laid down for cancellation of bail. It is a
settled law that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case and
cancellation of bail already granted have to be considered and
dealt with different basis. Cogent and overwhelming
circumstances are necessary to cancel the bail already granted.
In the case on hand, the complaint lodged by the petitioner
against respondent No.2 is still under investigation and
therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.2 has violated
NC: 2023:KHC:20011
CRL.P No. 311 of 2023
any of the conditions imposed against him while he was
enlarged on bail. No grounds are made out to cancel the bail
granted to respondent No.2. Petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VBS
CT: BHK
