Allowed

D. Prabhakaran S/O. Dayalan v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2021CRL.P/100194/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a rape case (IPC 376). The High Court allowed the petition, directing release from police station custody upon arrest subject to stringent conditions including surety, periodic interrogation, and restriction on leaving the jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to be released on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to personal bond, surrender, and daily reporting/interrogation conditions.

D. Prabhakaran S/O. Dayalan Vs State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100194/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

D. PRABHAKARAN S/O. DAYALAN AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. MAISON, R/O. 24/1, 30TH WARD HOSAPETE DIST. BALLARI, PRESENTLY R/O. AT NO.43 NISARGA LAYOUT, 2^ND PHASE, GANGA ROAD ABBIGERE, BENGALURU-560090.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, HCGP)

¶10

AND

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH T.B. DAM POLICE STATION, DIST. BALLRI-583101.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY MS. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶14

THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S. 438 CR.P.C. PRAYING FOR GRANT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN T. B. DAM POLICE STATION, BALLARI CRIME NO.34/2020 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376, 420, 109 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶15

¶16

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.34/2020 registered by the T. B. Dam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 109 R/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that, on the complaint of the victim, the police registered a case on 20.12.2020. It is alleged by her in the complaint that, the accused/petitioner herein, came in her contact through face book and later they used to contact through mobile phone and became friends. Thereafter they fell in love and on 08.11.2018, the accused called her to come alone and meet him in T.S.P.L. Colony in front of Mudhurai Veeran Temple at about 10.30 pm. It is alleged that, when she went there, he forcibly had sexual intercourse with her in spite of her refusal. He also made a false promise to her that he would marry her and later many times had sexual contact with her for about two years. After

¶20

¶21

two years, the accused is said to have started disconnecting with the complainant and not receiving her phone calls and totally disconnected from the complainant from 24.10.2020 onwards. Hence she approached the police on 18.12.2020 and though the police called his parents and advised to marry her with the accused, they neglected and sent the accused to a different place. Hence she lodged the complaint. After registering the case, the police are making efforts to arrest this petitioner and his parents. They approached the Sessions Judge for grant of anticipatory bail, which came to be allowed in part, where the learned Sessions Judge granted bail to the parents/accused Nos. 2 and 3 on 22.02.2021 and rejected the bail petition of this petitioner. Hence the petitioner is before this Court.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences. He has been falsely implicated by the complainant. Even if there is any offence committed by the petitioner, it is a consensual sex. The age of the victim is 27 years and she knows about all the happenings and there is inordinate delay of two years in lodging the complaint. The

¶23

¶24

petitioner is the permanent resident of Ballari and he is ready to abide by any conditions. The co-accused have already been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner also.

¶25

Per contra learned HCGP objected to the bail petition and contended that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. The investigation is still pending. The accused committed rape on the victim on the false promise of marrying her. The offence committed by the petitioner is heinous one. Hence he prayed for rejection of the petition.

¶26

Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the records, it shows that the alleged offence is said to have been committed on 08.11.2018 at 10.30 pm. However, there is no complaint filed by the victim from the last two years until the accused is totally disconnected from her relationship even through mobile phone. Both of them were fell in love after coming in contact through face book. Though the investigation is still pending, the co-accused have been granted bail in Crl.Misc.No.5440/2020. The only allegation against this petitioner is, on the false promise of

¶27

¶28

marrying the complainant, he had intercourse with her. The complainant is aged 27 years. Of course there is delay of two years in filing the complaint. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that, if the petitioner is granted bail by imposing any stringent conditions, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence I proceed to pass the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Petition is allowed . The respondent-police is directed to

¶31

release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No 34/2020 of T.B. Dam Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 109 R/w. Section 34 of the IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶32

i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the trial Court.

¶33

ii. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶34

¶35

iii. The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly in any manner.

¶36

iv. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.

¶37

v. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every day between 10.00 am and 4.00 am for a period of one week for the purpose of interrogation and later he has to appear before the Investigating Officer once in a week for a period of two weeks on every Saturday between 10.00 am and 4.00 pm until filing of the charge sheet or for three months, whichever is earlier.

¶38

If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

gab

D. Prabhakaran S/O. Dayalan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Prabhakaran S/O. Dayalan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh S/O. Vittal Biradar Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Annappa S/O Yallappa Kagi Vs State of Karnataka

Allabakshi Alias Allabaksh S/O Khader Sab Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajendra Singh S/O Lal Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

Satish S/O Gurunath Alias Gurappa Chalawadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Harapal Singh S/O Prem Singh Vs the State of Karnataka