Allowed

Nagaraju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2022CRL.P/8476/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants regular bail under Section 439 CrPC to a petitioner accused of rape. The court noted the victim's 164 CrPC statement suggesting consensual sex, finding no force based allegations. Bail was granted with strict conditions including a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in Crime No.248/2022 on executing personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions.

Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8476/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NAGARAJU S/O HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT BEECHANAHALLI KUDUR HOBLI MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-561 101 ….PETITIONER (BY SRI. THIMMANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUDUR POLICE STATION REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BENGALURU-01

¶11

SOWMYA D/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT ANTHARGANGEPALYA KUDUR TOWN MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-561 101

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO

¶15

¶16

ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.110/2018 OF KUDUR P.S., RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.376 AND 417 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MAGADI.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Crime No.248/2022 of Kudur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of IPC, pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi.

¶20

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that the complainant was earlier in love with one Babu @ Jagadish Babu resident of Kudur town and under the pretext of marrying her he raped her and as such she has lodged a complaint against the said Babu @ Jagadish Babu in Kudur Police Station and the said person was in custody. She also asserted that she begotten a child aged about 4 years through the said

¶21

¶22

Babu @ Jagadish Babu. It is also asserted that 5-6 months earlier she came in contact with the present petitioner and he also assured that he would marry her and took her near the temple to Mullakattamma in Hullenahalli village and raped her. It is also alleged that under the same promise 3-4 times he raped her under the pretext of marriage and subsequently, went on postponing the same. Later on petitioner did not respond to her and refused to marry her and as such she lodged a complaint on 02.06.2022 which came to be registered for the offence under Sections 376 and 417 of IPC. The petitioner was arrested during the course of investigation and was remanded to judicial custody. He has moved a regular bail petition before the learned sessions judge and his bail petition came to be rejected by the learned sessions judge. Hence, he is before this

¶23

Court.

¶24

¶25

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

¶26

Perused the records.

¶27

After hearing the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that the complainant has specifically alleged that earlier one Babu @ Jagadish Babu under the false promise of marrying, raped her and she lodged a complaint and he is in custody. She further alleged that subsequently, the present petitioner has also under false promise raped her and she is pregnant now. Interestingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to a 164 of Cr.P.C. statement given by the present complainant in the criminal case lodged against Babu @ Jagadish Babu. In the said case, she asserted that she was in love with Babu and she had married with Babu and she is now pregnant and she denied the other allegations. No doubt

¶28

¶29

her marriage with Babu may be illegal as it contravenes the Provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act as the complainant was hardly aged about 16 years when the earlier incident has taken place. But she has given 164 of Cr.P.C. statement in this case also wherein she has given a go-by to the allegations made in the complaint. According to her 164 of Cr.P.C. statement, the petitioner and the complainant were working at the same place and they were acquainted only and further she states that 20 days prior to Shivarathri he took her near the Nilgiri farm and there they had physical relationship and then she got knowledge that she was pregnant. Interestingly, she never asserted in her 164 of Cr.P.C. statement that the petitioner developed physical contact with her under the guise of promise. Her statement further disclose that a bald 164 of Cr.P.C. statement at the fag end is made that the petitioner under the pretext of marriage he has cheated her. But as regards allegations of rape, there is no assertion that

¶30

¶31

they had physical relationship on account of any marriage promise. The conduct of the petitioner itself becomes doubtful as she claimed that the petitioner was known to her since last 6 years. But in the earlier case she claimed that she was raped by one Babu @ Jagadish Babu and later asserted that she was married with him. Hence, prima-facie it appears that it is a consensual sex and there is no force. The 164 of Cr.P.C. statement given by the victim itself establish that it was a consensual sex. No doubt the medical report disclose that she was pregnant, but there is no evidence of promise. The records submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner also disclose that the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been laid down under Sections 417 and 376 of IPC on 24.08.2022. As such it is evident that the presence of the petitioner is no more required by the investigating agency.

¶32

¶33

Looking to these facts and circumstances, I do not find any impediment for admitting the petitioner on bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Hence, the petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petition is allowed . The petitioner/Accused No.1 is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.248/2022 of Kudur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of IPC, pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court , subject to the following conditions:

¶36

(i) He shall not indulge in any of the criminal activities.

¶37

(ii) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶38

¶39

(iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court, without prior permission.

¶40

(iv) He shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing, unless he is exempted by a specific order.

¶41

(v) He shall co-operate for speedy disposal of the matter.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

NS CT:NR

Nagaraju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraju 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

Smt. Rajina Vs State of Karnataka

Imran Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Narrendra D Devanga Vs the State of Karnataka

Anas Ahmed Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Sri. Adesh K a @ Adesh Gowda Vs State by

Mukdam @ Mukdam Sharif Vs State of Karnataka