Karnataka High Court
Shri. Pramodh Kumar B G vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 February, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5383
CRL.A No. 113 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 113 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SHRI. PRAMODH KUMAR B.G.
S/O GANESH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT: No.11632
NEAR SANKALP APARTMENT
II PHASE, 4TH STAGE
VIJAYANAGARA
MYSURU - 570 017.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PALLAVA R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VIJAYANAGARA P. S
MYSURU, REPRESENTED BY
Digitally signed by THE LEARNED S .P .P
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BENGALURU - 560 001.
KARNATAKA
2. KUM. ASHWINI M
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
D/O MANCHAIAH
R/AT: No.119/28
3RD CROSS, RAJENDRA NAGAR
MYSURU - 570 006.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R-1
SRI. G.H. LOHITH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5383
CRL.A No. 113 of 2024
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.12.2023
PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRL.MISC.No.2423/2023 AND ETC,.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant - accused No.1
praying to set aside the order dated 29.12.2023 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.2423/2023 by the VI Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Mysuru, whereunder, the anticipatory bail
petition of the appellant - accused No.1 sought in respect
of Crime No.224/2023 of Vijayanagara Police Station for
the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 376,
504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), Sections
3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for
short hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), came to be
rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC:5383
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-accused
No.1, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 -
State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, respondent
and appellant are colleagues in the company since 2017
and they become acquainted with each other in the course
of their employment and their friendship eventually turned
to attraction towards each other and they developed
mutual feelings with each other. The appellant and
complainant have traveled together on various trips and
spent time with each other and never initiated any
physical contact.
4. It is further case of respondent No.2 that the
appellant - accused No.1 proposed to marry her and she
told that she belongs to Scheduled Caste and if his parents
agree, they will proceed further. During March, 2023, both
went to Gokarna, where, with the promise of marriage, he
had sexual intercourse with her, against her will. After
NC: 2024:KHC:5383
two-three days', the appellant - accused No.1 intimated
her that her parents are not agreeing for marriage, as she
belongs to Scheduled Caste. Thereafter, on 25.06.2023,
the appellant - accused No.1 took respondent No.2 to
Capital M.K.Arcade Hotel and told her that he will marry
her within few days and had sexual intercourse with her
against her will. Thereafter, whenever, respondent No.2
asked him to marry her, the appellant - accused No.1
used to postpone the same, on one or the other pretext
and during last week of July, he blocked her number and
thereafter, he did not receive her calls. Respondent No.2
on 19.11.2023, went to the house of the appellant -
accused No.1, where, the appellant - accused No.1 and his
parents abused her taking her caste name and refused for
the marriage. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed a
complaint against the appellant - accused No.1 and his
parents on 15.12.2023 which came to be registered in
Crime No.224/2023 for the offences under Sections 417,
420, 376 and 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections
3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant -
NC: 2024:KHC:5383
accused No.1 and his parents, apprehending their arrest
filed Crl.Misc.No.2423/2023, seeking anticipatory bail and
the same came to be allowed insofar as the parents of this
appellant - accused No.1 are concerned and it came to be
rejected sofar as this appellant - accused No.1 is
concerned by order dated 29.12.2023. The said order has
been challenged in this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant - accused
No.1 would contend that the appellant - accused No.1 and
respondent No.2 were colleagues and friends and they
developed intimacy and had affair. He further submits
that due to his medical condition of erectile dysfunction,
he cut off his relationship with respondent No.2 and
therefore, respondent No.2 mocked this appellant -
accused No.1 as he is unable to perform sexual
intercourse. He places reliance on the certificate issued by
Kidney Stone Clinic & Men's Health Centre, Mysuru, for
having taken treatment for the said erectile dysfunction
and it is dated 14.06.2023. He further submits that
NC: 2024:KHC:5383
parents of this appellant - accused No.1 who alleged to
have abused along with this appellant - accused No.1
taking caste name of respondent No.2 and refused for
marriage of appellant - accused No.1 with respondent
No.2, have been granted anticipatory bail under the
impugned order. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal
and grant anticipatory bail to the appellant - accused
No.1.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader would contend that respondent No.2 belongs to
Scheduled Caste and the appellant - accused No.1 under
the pretext of marriage, had sexual intercourse with her
against her will two times and thereafter, along with his
parents, he abused her taking her caste name and refused
to marry her. The matter is at the stage of investigation
and the presence of this appellant - accused No.1 is
required for custodial interrogation. Considering all these
aspects, the learned District and Special Judge has rightly
rejected the anticipatory bail petition of this appellant -
NC: 2024:KHC:5383
accused No.1. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the
appeal.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would
contend that the appellant - accused No.1 had taken
treatment for erectile dysfunction on 14.06.2023. After
taking treatment, the appellant - accused No.1 recovered.
Even the appellant - accused No.1 had approached the
diagnostic centre on 18.07.2023 for test and the result
shows improvement in his erectile dysfunction. He
contends that as this respondent No.2 belongs to
Scheduled Caste, he refused to marry her and under the
pretext of marriage, he had sexual intercourse with her
against her will. Considering all these aspects, the learned
District and Special Judge has rightly rejected his
anticipatory bail petition. With this, he prayed to dismiss
the appeal.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,
this Court has perused the impugned order, F.I.R,
complaint and the other documents.
NC: 2024:KHC:5383
9. The averments of the complaint indicate that
the appellant - accused No.1 and respondent No.2 are
colleagues in a Company. They developed friendship and
eventually, the said friendship turned into affair. It is
alleged in the complaint that, on two dates ie., during
March, 2023 and 25.06.2023, this appellant - accused
No.1 had sexual intercourse with the complainant against
her will, there is no complaint by this respondent No.2
against this appellant - accused No.1 in that regard. It is
only because he refused to marry her and he abused along
with his parents taking her caste name, a complaint came
to be filed. The victim is aged thirty years and know the
consequences of her acts. The parents of the appellant -
accused No.1 who have been arraigned as accused Nos.2
and 3, who stated to have abused the complainant along
with this appellant - accused No.1 touching her caste and
refused to marry on that ground, have been granted
anticipatory bail. The document produced by the appellant
- accused No.1 would indicate that he has been diagnosed
NC: 2024:KHC:5383
for erectile dysfunction and he is taking treatment since
14.06.2023.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant - accused
No.1 has argued that as he was not able to perform the
sexual act, the complainant mocked him and ultimately
filed the complaint. The said aspect cannot be delved into,
since the investigation is in progress. The appellant -
accused No.1 has undertaken to co-operate with the police
in investigation. If the appellant - accused No.1 is
arrested, it will affect his reputation as he is an young age
person working in a Company. Without considering all
these aspects, the learned District and Special Judge has
passed the impugned order which requires interference by
this Court.
11. The appellant - accused No.1 has made out
grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of
anticipatory bail. In the result, the following;
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:5383
ORDER
(i) The appellant-accused No.1 shall execute a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for
the likesum to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer.
(ii) The appellant-accused No.1 shall appear
before the Investigating Officer within ten
days from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order and execute the bail bond
and furnish the surety.
(iii) The appellant-accused No.1 shall co-operate
with the Investigating Officer in investigation.
(iv) The appellant-accused No.1 shall not threaten
the complainant and other prosecution
witnesses.
(v) The appellant-accused No.1 shall not hamper
the investigation.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DSP, GH
