Allowed

D K Manjunath v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2022CRL.P/4411/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed anticipatory bail petition seeking release in event of arrest in sexual offence case, imposing conditions for surrender, cooperation, non-hampering of witnesses, and periodic reporting to investigating officer, noting recent marriage between accused and victim.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with sureties, surrender within 10 days, monthly reporting, and restrictions on leaving jurisdiction.

D K Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4411/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

D.K.MANJUNATH, S/O KADIRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR, MYSURU CITY CORPORATION, MYSURU CITY, AND ALSO AT S.DEVANAHALLI SADALI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALAPUR DISTRICT-562104. …PETITIONER (BY SHRI.PHANIRAJ KASHYAP, ADV.) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, NAZARBAD POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT-570001, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENT

¶8

(BY SHRI.VINAYAK V.S., HCGP FOR RESPONDENT, SHRI P.C.NARESHKUMAR, FOR DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT)

¶9

¶10

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.No.46/2022 OF NAZARBAD P.S., MYSURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECITON 376 (2) (n), 506, 504, 420, 417 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶11

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the de-facto complainant and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State.

¶14

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is working as Junior Health Officer in Mysuru City Corporation wherein sister of the victim was also working. The petitioner and victim got introduced to each other and they became friends. Later he developed intimacy with the complainant and had sexual intercourse with her as a result of which she became pregnant. The said fact was also brought to the

¶15

¶16

notice of the family members of the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner abused the complainant in a filthy language and tried to subject her to forcible abortion which she refused to do so. The accused threatened the complainant to kill her if she refused for abortion and also that he would upload the naked photographs and videos of himself and the victim in the social media. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the police. Based on the said complaint, the police have registered a case under Sections 376(2)(n), 506, 504, 420, 417 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that due to some misunderstanding, the incident has taken place between the accused and the complainant and now both of them have got married and living together in a rented premises. Earlier also the accused had made provision for the stay of complainant in a friend’s house and he was also staying along with her. Hence, he seeks that the petitioner be released on bail as

¶18

¶19

the petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

¶20

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State submits that admittedly the accused and the complainant have got married but in spite of the marriage, there appears to be some differences between them. Hence, he seeks for rejection of anticipatory bail to the accused.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of defacto complainant appearing through the State Public Prosecutor submits that though the accused and the complainant are residing together, there are some differences between them and there are chances of the accused subjecting her to harassment if anticipatory bail is granted to him. Accordingly, he seeks to reject the petition through the learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the de-facto complainant

¶23

¶24

and also learned High Court Government Pleader and also having regard to the subsequent development that the accused and complainant have got married and are staying in a rented premises and with regard to differences between them and subjected her for threat the same can be taken care of by imposing conditions to safeguard the interest and protection of the complainant, it is appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail subject to certain conditions.

¶25

7. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

i) The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.46/2022 of Nazarbad Police Station, Mysure district, for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(n), 506, 504, 420, 417 read with Section 34 IPC, subject to the following conditions:-

¶28

¶29

a) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.

¶30

b) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶31

c) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.

¶32

d) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.

¶33

e) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30^th of every month between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three

¶34

¶35

months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Jm/-

D K Manjunath v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D K Manjunath 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

Shri.Rudragouda S/O Goudappa Marigoudar Vs the Managing Director

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Vs Ningappa Lachappa Lamani

The Branch Manager Vs Shri. Rudragouda Goudappa Marigoudar

Mubaraq S/O Gulab Attar Vs Gajanan S/O Balasaheb Bolaji

Ms.Yogashree H.C. Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddesh P M @ Siddappa Vs the State by Rural Police