Dismissed

Smt. Krithika Saraswathi v. Sri. K. Lakshminarayana

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2022/4739/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a criminal petition filed by the rape victim to cancel the bail granted to her father-in-law for offences under Sections 376, 354, and 506 of IPC. The Court held that no supervening circumstances, violations of bail conditions, or cogent evidence of tampering were placed on record to justify interference with the Sessions Court order.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition praying for cancellation of bail granted to Respondent No.1 is rejected.

Smt. Krithika Saraswathi Vs Sri. K. Lakshminarayana — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4739/2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SMT. KRITHIKA SARASWATHI AGED 23 YEARS D/O ISHWAR BHAT R/AT PALLIGADDA HOUSE VITTAL PADNUR VILLAGE KODANGAI POST, BANTWAL TALUK D.K. DISTRICT-574 243 ...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. K. LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED 60 YEARS S/O LATE ISHWAR BHAT R/AT KANTHILA DAMBETHOTA HOUSE KAIRANGALA VILLAGE & POST BANTWAL TQ, D.K-574 153

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WOMEN’S POLICE STATION MANGALORE, D.K. DIST-575 001 REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI. ANANDARAMA .K, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R2)

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) R/W 482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE AND CANCEL THE REGULAR BAIL GRANTED TO RESPONDENT NO.1 (ACCUSED) AS PER THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.01.2021 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN CRL.MISC.NO.3/2021, GRANTING REGULAR BAIL TO ACCUSED-K LAKSHMINARAYANA/RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss. 376, 354, 506 OF IPC IN CONNECTION WITH CR.NO.71/2020 OF WOMEN POLICE STATION, MANGALURU, AND ORDER THAT THE ACCUSED BE TAKEN TO CUSTODY FORTHWITH.

¶16

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.11.2022 COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner/complainant has filed this petition under Section 439(2) read with 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail granted to Respondent No.1/accused

¶19

by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru in Criminal Misc. No.3/2021 vide order dated 21.01.2022 in Crime No.71/2020 of Women Police Station, Mangaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 354 and 506 of IPC.

¶20

The brief factual matrix leading to the case

¶21

are that, the petitioner/complainant has married to the one Shivaranjan, the son of Respondent No.1/Accused-

¶22

¶23

Laxminarayana Bhat in the year 2015. Since January 2020, accused/Respondent No.2 started sexually harassing the petitioner/complainant. According to the complainant, on 09.12.2020, around 11.30 a.m., accused/Respondent No.2 has committed rape on the petitioner/complainant for the first time in the guest

¶24

room of the house. It is also alleged that, on 11.12.2020 around 11.30 a.m., he again committed rape on petitioner/complainant for the second time in the pump-set of the Farm House from back side. It is also alleged that, initially, accused/Respondent No.2 was seeking sexual favour from the complainant, who is the Daughter-in-law and she brought it to the notice of her mother-in-law, who in turn, advised her that, there is nothing wrong in continuing such relationship. However, when she brought it to the notice of her husband, he did not believe this aspect and asserted that she is mentally imbalanced and again, when the complainant narrated this matter to her husband, he did not trust her. In the meanwhile, her mother-in-law quarreled with her on the ground that, she has brought

¶25

¶26

it to the notice of her son, who is the husband of the petitioner/complainant. The husband of the complainant without believing her, on the ground that she is mentally imbalanced, left her in her parental house on 20.12.2020. Subsequently, on 29.12.2020 the petitioner/complainant has lodged a complaint in this regard with the concerned police.

¶27

The Respondent No.1/accused was arrested and he was remanded to judicial custody. Later on, he moved for regular bail before the learned Sessions Judge and the same was allowed on 21.01.2021. The said order is being now challenged by the complainant/petitioner herein seeking cancellation of bail.

¶28

Heard the arguments advanced by Sri. P.P. Hegde, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri. Venkatesh Somareddi, appearing for the

¶29

petitioner/complainant and Sri. Anandarama K., the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1/accused. Perused the records.

¶30

¶31

The petition was seriously contested by the

¶32

Respondent No.1/accused. In fact, the learned HCGP has submitted that the State is sailing with the complainant/petitioner.

¶33

Learned counsel for the

¶34

petitioner/complainant would contend that

¶35

accused/Respondent No.1 being father-in-law of the petitioner/complainant, has committed brutal rape on

¶36

her twice and even her mother-in-law asked her to get adjusted to him, and, her husband did not believe her. He would contend that, 20.12.2020, she was left in her parental house and on the ground that, she lost her mental balance and on 29.12.2020 she lodged a complaint. It is further asserted that, due to this incident, the marriage bond was retrievably broken and initially she filed a petition under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘D.V Act’ for short). But, subsequently, she has obtained consent divorce decree. It is further asserted that, while granting bail, the learned Sessions Judge did not consider the social

¶37

¶38

impact and he has only considered the ground of age related ailment and as such, the order is perverse. It is asserted that, when serious allegations are made and prima facie case has been made out, the Sessions Court ought to have been slow in granting bail. It is also further contended that, the act of Respondent No.1/accused is a ghastly, inhuman and barbaric. The Court has failed to consider his release on bail would be danger to the victim and witnesses and he is likely to tamper the prosecution witnesses, as he has already won-over the husband and mother-in-law of the complainant/petitioner. Hence, it is alleged that the Sessions Court failed to appreciate the proper material evidence and failed to exercise discretion in proper perspective and as such, the learned counsel would seek for allowing the petition filed for cancellation of bail granted to Respondent No.1/accused.

¶39

Per contra, the learned counsel for

¶40

Respondent No.1/accused would contend that, the order of granting bail was passed on 21.01.2021 and the

¶41

¶42

records disclose that the accused/Respondent No.1 all along co-operated with Investigating Agency. It is further submitted that, on 03.07.2021 charge sheet came to be filed and since more than one year nine months, the accused/Respondent No.1 is on bail and there is no single allegation against him that he has violated any of the bail conditions. He would also contend that, now the matter is set down for fixing date of trial and the bail was not obtained by concealing any of the facts and hence, he would contend that, when no case is made-out for cancellation of bail, the petition itself is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶43

Having heard the arguments and on perusing the records, it is evident that, the accused/respondent No.1 was arrested on 29.12.2020 and subsequently he was enlarged on bail on 21.01.2021. The trial Court has considered the age related ailments suffered by accused/Respondent No.1 and even the learned Sessions Judge has observed that, though there are

¶44

¶45

alleged repeated sexual assault, though it is alleged about the petitioner/complainant bringing the matter to the notice of her husband and mother-in-law, no reasons were offered for not bringing it to the notice of her parents. Hence, the Special Court has held that, all these aspects are required to be tested during the course of trial and on considering the age and other aspects, has granted bail.

¶46

Learned Senior Counsel for the

¶47

petitioner/complainant in this context has placed reliance on a decision reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 552 [P. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another] and invited the attention of the Court to Para No.24 of the said decision. However, in Para No.25, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down certain guidelines for cancellation of bail, which reads as under:-

¶48

“25. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for canceling bail once granted, the court must consider whether any supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer conducive to a fair trial to permit him to

¶49

¶50

retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trail. To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be loath to interfere with an order passed by the Court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the Appellate Court. Some of the circumstances where bail granted to the accused under Section 439(1) of the Cr.P.C. can be cancelled are enumerated below:-

¶51

a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other criminal activity;

¶52

b) If he interferes with the course of investigation;

¶53

c) If he attempts to tamper with the evidence;

¶54

d) If he attempts to influence/threaten the witnesses;

¶55

e) If he evades or attempts to evade court proceedings;

¶56

f) If he indulges in activities which would hamper smooth investigation;

¶57

g) If he is likely to flee from the country;

¶58

h) If he attempts to make himself scarce by going underground and/or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency;

¶59

i) If he attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety;

¶60

¶61

j) If any facts may emerge after the grant of bail which are considered unconducive to a fair trail.”

¶62

But, in the instant case, no material evidence is placed to show that the respondent No.1/accused has violated

¶63

any of the guidelines referred in the above cited decision. The principles enunciated in the above cited decision will assist the accused/respondent No.1 rather than the petitioner/complainant. The learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on a decision reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 458 [Y… Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another] and invited the attention of the Court to Para Nos.21 & 22. But, in the said case, the Respondent No.1/Accused was a habitual offender and nearly 20 cases were registered against him, which he has concealed while obtaining bail. Further, the impugned order of the High Court was cryptic and does not suggest application of mind. In this contest, the bail order came to be cancelled. But, it is not the case of the prosecution or petitioner/complainant that the petitioner is a habitual offender. Under these circumstances, the

¶64

¶65

said principles will not come to the aid of the petitioner/complainant.

¶66

On the contrary, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1/accused has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (1995)1 SCC 349 [Dolat Ram and Others V. State

¶67

of Haryana], wherein at Para No.4 it is observed that, certain factors/principles to be taken into consideration for cancellation of bail already granted. The Para-4 reads as under:-

¶68

“ 4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical

¶69

¶70

manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.”

¶71

None of these principles are made applicable to the present Respondent No.1/Accused in the instant case. Hence, the said principles are directly applicable to the case in hand. Further, in support of the case, the learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decisions reported in (2004)13 SCC 617 [Ramachanran Vs. State of M.P.] and 2020 (11) SCC 648 [Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and

¶72

Others].

¶73

Considering the above cited decisions, it is to be noted here that, while canceling bail already granted, the Court should be very slow and there should be cogent evidence and the principles as enumerated in

¶74

¶75

the above decision reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 552 [P… Vs. State of M.P. & Another) (supra) are required to be complied. But, in the instant case, no such evidence is forthcoming. All along the complainant/petitioner has alleged regarding repeated rape on her and also mother-in-law of the petitioner and her husband have failed to trust her. But, her own statement discloses that, she was left in the house of her parents by her husband on 20.12.2020. But, it is hard to accept that, she has not even disclosed about the act of the accused/Respondent No.1 to her mother for nearly nine days and complaint was filed on 29.12.2020. Normally, such matters would be shared by victims, with their mother. But, in the instant case, no such attempt is forthcoming on the part of the complainant/petitioner. What is the exact reason for delay in lodging complaint is required to be tested during the course of trial and it is already submitted that the date of trial is about to be fixed.

¶76

¶77

Apart from that, the learned Senior Counsel

¶78

for petitioner further submitted that, after divorce, now the petitioner/complainant has re-married and in this regard, he has placed reliance on her marriage invitation card, which is not disputed. It is also asserted that, she has also voluntarily left minor children to the custody of the husband and at present the minor children are taken care of by the Respondent No.1/accused in his house.

¶79

Looking to the facts and circumstances, it is evident that the learned Sessions Judge has appreciated all the aspects in his order and lot of water has flown in between, as bail was granted on 21.12.2021 and six months later, this petition was filed. However, in between, investigation was concluded and charge sheet is also submitted. Even there are no allegations made regarding non-cooperation by Respondent No.1/Accused during the course of investigation or violation of any conditions imposed while granting bail.

¶80

¶81

Considering the facts and circumstances, I

¶82

am of the opinion that, the bail petition filed by the complainant/petitioner is devoid of any merits and no cogent grounds are forthcoming for cancellation of bail. As such, the bail petition needs to be rejected.

¶83

Accordingly, the petition stands rejected .

¶84

Sd/JUDGE

¶85

KGR* CT:NR

Smt. Krithika Saraswathi v. Sri. K. Lakshminarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Krithika Saraswathi v. Sri. K. Lakshminarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Sunka Bhovi Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Varun Gurjar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Harish R Vs State of Karnataka

Imran @ Mady Imran Vs State of Karnataka by

Khaja Nawaz @ Nawaz Pasha Vs State by

Keerthi Vs State of Karnataka