KABC010161402022
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT
BENGALURU (CCH. No.71)
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2022.
PRESENT:
SRI. PRAKASH.V., B.A(L)., LL.B.
LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Crl.Misc.No.6019/2022
PETITIONER
:
Sachin Thelakar
S/o Keerthy Raj,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at Subash Nagar,
Koppa Town,
Chikkamagalore-577 126.
(By Sri.D.R.Babu, Advocate.,)
-V/s-
RESPONDENT :
STATE BY
Rajagopala Nagar Police
Station, Bengaluru.
(Rep. By Public prosecutor)
ORDERS ON BAIL APPLICATION
The petitioner/accused has filed this petition under
section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking for his enlargement
Crl.Misc.No.6019/2022
2
on bail in Spl.C.No.1038/2022 for the offences
punishable under Sections 376, 420, 504, 506 of
IPC
and
Sec.3(2)(v)
of
Scheduled
Castes
&
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
1989.
2.

In the bail application it is stated that, the
petitioner is innocent of the offences levelled
against him and he has been falsely implicated in
this case only to harass him. The police authorities
are trying to link him in the present case on the
statements alleged to be given in favour of
prosecution. There is no criminal background on
the part of petitioner. The complainant is adult and
well educated girl supposed to be well aware of
consequences
of
sexual
intercourse
prior
to
marriage which cannot be considered as rape and
also their physical relationship was consensual in
nature. As per Sec.375 of IPC when both adults
Crl.Misc.No.6019/2022
3
having continuous consensual sex which cannot be
considered as rape. The petitioner is respectable
person and who is working in Bosch Rexorth
Company, having good reputation in the society.
As per 164 statement, she clearly admitted that
she met the petitioner many time and stayed so
many time with him in the rented house, it is
prima
facie,
goes
to
show
that
the
sexual
relationship between them was consensual in
nature. There is more than 2 years inordinate
delay in filing the complaint and which is not
properly
explained.

investigation,
the
After
police
have
completion
of
submitted
the
charge sheet and petitioner is not required for
further
investigation.

The
complainant
not
produced any single material documents regarding
the alleged offence. The alleged offences are not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
The petitioner is ready to abide by any of the
Crl.Misc.No.6019/2022
4
conditions to be imposed by this court and to offer
satisfactory
surety
to
ensure
his
regular
appearance. Hence, sought for bail.
3.

After institution of this petition,
the notice is
ordered to be issued to the complainant, who
inturn appeared before the Court and has duly
represented by the Special Public Prosecutor.
4.

As against the above application, the learned
Special
Public
Prosecutor
has
filed
detailed
objection opposing the bail application on various
grounds and reiterated averments of compliant
and contended that the IO has filed charge sheet
in this case. If the petitioner is released he may
threaten the complainant and other witnesses,
may tamper with the evidence, commit similar
offences and may abscond permanently. Thus
sought for rejection of bail.

Crl.Misc.No.6019/2022
5
5.

Heard the arguments of both the sides and
perused the records.

6.

The learned counsel for petitioner has produced
last date order sheet in Crl.Misc.3936/2022 of this
Court, Bail order of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam
in
Bail
Appl.No.3798/2020,
order
passed in Criminal Petition No.100750/2020 by
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench,
order passed in Bail Appln.2207/2016 of Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, judgment
reported in 2021(4) KCCR 2918 of Hon’ble High
Court(Dharawad
Bench)
and
(2020)
4
SCC
727(Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India &
Others) and order passed in CRM(A) 361/2022
Hon’ble High Court of Calicut.
7.

The following points arise for my consideration;
POINTS
1.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to
be enlarged on bail u/s 439 of Cr.P.C?

Crl.Misc.No.6019/2022
6
2.
8.

What order?

My answers to the above points are ;
Point No.1:–
In the Negative
Point No.2:-
As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
9.

POINT NO.1: The materials placed on record
would go to show that the respondent Police have
filed chargesheet against the petitioner for the
offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 504,
506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3(2)(v) of SC/ST(POA)
Act. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that,
during
the
year
2020
the
complainant
and
petitioner came in contact through Facebook and
fell in love affair on the promise of marriage made
by
the
petitioner.

Thereafter,
the
petitioner
forcefully committed sexual intercourse with the
complainant on several occasions against her will
in the house of petitioner situated at Sanjeevini
Crl.Misc.No.6019/2022
7
Nagar
of
Hegganahalli
Cross.

When
the
complainant insisted the petitioner to marry her,
the petitioner refused and abused the complainant
in filthy language by taking her caste name and
threatened to take away her life.
10.

The learned counsel for petitioner would argued
that, petitioner herein has not at all committed the
alleged offences and he is innocent of the offence.
Further
he
argued
that,
the
petitioner
and
complainant had sexual affairs with consent and it
cannot be considered as rape. The police have
already filed charge sheet before this court. Prays
to allow the bail petition.
11.

The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the
petitioner has committed the offence of rape
against the will and wish of the victim who belongs
to Scheduled Caste Community. The contents of
the charge sheet discloses the prima facie case
8
Crl.Misc.No.6019/2022
against the petitioner. Hence, bail petition does
not deserve to allow.
12.

On perusal of the charge sheet, it is discloses that
there is specific overt act against petitioner for
committing the offence of rape against will of the
victim and prima facie case is made out against
this petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the
contents of chargesheet prima facie discloses that,
the petitioner said to have been committed
forcible sexual intercourse with the complainant
against her will. Whether the alleged act of sexual
intercourse
is
consensual
or
not
cannot
be
considered at this stage, for a simple reason that
when the petition is filed u/sec.439 of Cr.P.C., the
limited jurisdiction that court could consider is
whether the party can tamper with witnesses and
documents and also whether there is a prima facie
case on the basis of materials available on record.

Crl.Misc.No.6019/2022
9
It is impermissible for this court to consider the
merits of the case.
13.

The prima facie materials available on record
further discloses that the alleged offence has been
committed
against
the
victim
belongs
to
Scheduled Caste Community. On this count also
the petition filed by the petitioner cannot be
considered.
14.

I have carefully gone though the principles laid
down in the Judgements relied by the learned
counsel for accused. In the order passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Bail Application
No.3798/2020(Shanil Vs. State of Kerala) it is
discloses that the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala
granted anticipatory bail in favour of the accused
of that case on the ground that the victim had
sexual intercourse with the accused on account of
her love. The principles cannot be made applicable
Crl.Misc.No.6019/2022
10
to the present case for a simple reason that the
victim of the case on hand has made specific
allegations against petitioner for commission of
offence of rape against her will on the promise of
marriage.
15.

In
the
judgment
Karnataka
in
of
Crl.

Hon’ble
Petition
High
Court
of
No.100750/2020
(Khazamainuddin @ Manu Vs. State of Karnataka),
the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka granted bail
in favour of accused who is charge sheeted for the
offence punishable under section 376, 506 of IPC,
Section 6 of POCSO, Section 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST(POA) Act on the ground that there was a
love affair between the accused and victim girl.
The principles laid down in the above said decision
cannot be made applicable to the case on hand for
a simple reason that, the accused of this case had
Crl.Misc.No.6019/2022
11
forcible sexual intercourse with complainant on
the false promise of marriage.
16.

In the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in bail
application
No.2207/2016
(Mohd
Moiz
Vs.

State(NCT of Delhi), the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi granted bail on the ground that the victim
not made allegation of rape against the accused in
the first complaint lodged before the police. The
principles laid down in the above said decision
cannot be made applicable to the case on hand for
a simple reason that, the complainant of this case
had made specific allegations in the complaint
against accused regarding commission of offence
of rape.
17.

In the Judgement of Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka
reported
in
2021(4)
KCCR
2918
(Shivakumaraswamy @ Kumaraswamy Vs. State of
Karnataka), the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
Crl.Misc.No.6019/2022
12
granted bail in favour of accused on the ground
that, the accused of that case was filed complaint
against victim at the first instance for alleged
assault and later, the victim has filed complaint
against accused by making allegation of rape. The
principles laid down in the above said decision
cannot be made applicable to the case on hand for
a simple reason that, no such complaint has been
filed
by
the
accused
of
this
case
against
complainant.
18.

The
learned
produced
counsel
for
petitioner
has
also
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 and the principles
laid down in the above said decision cannot be
made applicable to the case on hand for a simple
reason that said judgment was passed with regard
to
grant
of
anticipatory
bail
in
a
offences
registered under the Provisions of SC/ST Act.

Crl.Misc.No.6019/2022
13
19.

Under
these
circumstances,
looking
into
the
nature of the offence, at this stage it may not be
appropriate to release him on bail. If the petitioner
is released, his presence cannot be secured for the
trial as he may abscond, tamper the prosecution
witnesses and also may pose life threats to the
complainant and witnesses, may commit similar
offences. The apprehension of prosecution are well
founded.

Hence,
grounds
are
Accordingly,
holding
made
Point
that
out
No.1
for
is
no
exceptional
grant
answered
of
in
bail.
the
‘Negative’.
20.

Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The Petition filed by the petitioner
under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is hereby
dismissed.

14
Crl.Misc.No.6019/2022
Keep the copy of this order in
original
case
file
in
Spl.C.No.1038/2022.
(Typed my dictation directly in computer by the Stenographer, corrected,
signed and then pronounced in open court on this the 30 th day of June, 2022).

(PRAKASH.V)
LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru.