High Court disposed of a criminal petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving kidnapping a minor engaged to another man to force a physical relationship and marry. The court dismissed the petition.
The petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7525/2022
BETWEEN:
MR. ARUN KUMAR K.V S/O VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT KARAPURA VILLAGE ANTARASANTE HOBLI H.D. KOTE TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 114
….PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SHAHIDA KHANAM .J, ADVOCATE)
AND:
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.62/2022 OF NANJANAGUDU TOWN P.S., MYSURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.342, 420, 34 OF IPC R/W SEC.11 AND 12 OF POCSO ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED FAST TRACK COURT-1, JLB ROAD, MYSURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner/Accused No.1 has filed this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.62/2022 of Nanjanagudu Town Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 420 r/w 34 of IPC and under the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of IPC.
3
Karapura and at that time, she was acquainted with the petitioner herein. Thereafter, she returned to
Nanjanagudu. But, the petitioner used to call her mobile and as such, they were used talk each other and gradually they fell in love with each other. It is also alleged that on 06.02.2022, the complainant was engaged with one Sundar Raj of Satyamangala in Tamilnadu and when petitioner got information of this fact, on 15.02.2022, he
along with Abhi (Accused No.2) came to the house of victim at Nanjanagudu on two motor bikes and met victim and told that her Aunt is intending to meet her and on that pretext he enticed her and took her on the bike to the house of one Ashwini (Accused No.3) situated in Kumbara Koppalu at Mysuru. It is also alleged that, in the house of Accused No.3-Ashwini, the petitioner along with other accused insisted the victim to marry the petitioner and the petitioner intended to have physical relationship with the victim and when she did not agree for the same, she was confined there in a room for 2 to 3 days. Later
4
on, she was admitted to Balakiyara Bala Mandira in Mysuru by the petitioners by taking away her gold ornaments and when this matter was brought to the notice of her grand mother, she took custody of the victim, from Balakiyara Balamandira. Thereafter, with the said allegations, complaint in this regard came to be lodged by the complainant.
would contend that the petitioner/Accused No.1 and victim
5
were in love with each other and there is delay in lodging
the complaint. She would also contend that the presence
of petitioner is no more required by the Investigating Agency and hence, she would seek for admitting the petitioner on bail.
HCGP would seriously object the bail petition and prayed for rejecting the petition.
complainant/victim first visited to Karapura Village for House Warming Ceremony of her uncle and during said period she acquainted with the petitioner/Accused No.1
and subsequently they developed love with each other. However, it is also evident that she was engaged with one Sundar Raj, resident of Satyamangala at Tamilnadu District on 06.02.2022. After having got the knowledge of this aspect, on 15.02.2022, the petitioner along with his
6
brother came to the house of the complainant/victim and enticed her and took her to Kumbar Koppalu and got her confined in the house of Accused No.3/Ashwini. It is also alleged that, he also insisted her for physical relationship and she avoided that. It is alleged that, by taking away her gold ornaments, later on she was dropped in Balakiyara Balamandira in Mysuru. These allegations disclose that the complainant being victim, herself has lodged the complaint. No doubt, there is delay in lodging the complaint, but the mental status of victim is required to be considered that too when she was enticed and kidnapped by the petitioner and he wanted to have physical relationship that too when she was engaged with other person. The future of the petitioner is completely destroyed by this act on the part of the petitioner. As such, only the aspect of delay in lodging complaint is not a ground for granting discretionary relief of Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is all along absconding and the main allegations were attributed against him. The
7
other two accused were already arrested and the present petitioner is required for interrogation. Further, there are allegations of robbing the gold ornaments, which were on the body of the complainant and these aspects cannot be taken lightly. Hence, looking to the facts and circumstances and since provisions of Section 392 and 363 of IPC for robbery and kidnapping the victim are attracted, this is not a fit case, wherein discretion can be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the petition
being devoid of any merits, needs to be rejected.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed .
Sd/-
JUDGE
KGR* CT:NR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case involving kidnapping of a minor for marital purposes.
Whether there are sufficient grounds to exercise discretionary power in favour of the petitioner despite no-firmer allegations of robbery.
Whether the delay in lodging the complaint warrants granting anticipatory bail to the accused.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
MR. ARUN KUMAR K.V
STATE OF KARNATAKA
MR. VISHAKANTA
RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
