KABC010087282024 IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH. No.71) Dated this the 16th day of April, 2024. Present: Present: Sri. Rajesh Karnam.K, B.Sc.,LL.B.,LL.M., LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Criminal Misc.No.3093/2024 PETITIONER/S: Rajashekar, S/o.Ramesh, Aged about 32 years, Residing at No.3/608, Ganajuru village, Tubakanapalli Post, Sulagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu-635109. (Rep.by.Sri.D.B.M, Advocate) -V/sRESPONDENT: 1. State of Karnataka By HAL Police Station, Bengaluru. Rep.by Public Prosecutor, City Civil Court Complex, Bengaluru.

2. Kumari Kolla Sowjanya, D/o.Late Kolla Anjaneyalu, Bengaluru. (Rep. by Special Public Prosecutor) Crl.Misc.No.3093/2024

ORDER

The petitioner has instituted this petition under section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking for his enlargement on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 406, 417 of IPC and Sec.3(2)(v) and 3(1)(s) of S.C./S.T. (POA) Act 1989.

2. In the petition it is stated that, the complainant

lodged complaint stating that she is working as a team leader in LG Service centre, Kundalahalli, be and petitioner was working in the same office and petitioner took the mobile number and proposed for marriage through video call for which complainant agreed, on 6.11.2023 under the assurance of marriage the petitioner took her to Royal in Rooms Hotel, ITPL Road, Bengaluru and had sexual intercourse and on 11.11.2023 took her to Petun IA Boutizue hotel and also on 17.11.2023 and had sexual intercourse with her. Crl.Misc.No.3093/2024

3. The grounds of the petition is that he is innocent of

alleged offences and the FIR is bald, false baseless. Since 20.12.2023 till today the petitioner is in judicial custody. The materials collected by the prosecution does not indicate anywhere strong intention for accused to commit the offence of rape. The petitioner at no point of time had any kind of forcible sexual intercourse with the respondent No.2. the petitioner is having aged parents and coming from a respectable family and law abiding citizen. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this court and ready to offer surety to the satisfaction of this court. Hence, sought for bail.

4. As against the above petition, the learned Special

Public Prosecutor has filed detailed objection opposing the bail petition on various grounds and reiterated averments of complaint and contended that the petitioner is actually involved in the alleged Crl.Misc.No.3093/2024 offence. The offence punishable u/s.376 of IPC is very serious one. Therefore if the petitioner is granted bail, he may tamper the prosecution witnesses. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to seek bail. If the petitioner is granted bail, there is every possibility of tampering the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly seeks dismissal of the bail petition.

5. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the

records.

6. The following points arise for my consideration;

P O I N T S

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail u/s 439 of Cr.P.C?

2. What order?

7. My answers to the above points are ;

Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following; Crl.Misc.No.3093/2024 R E A S O N S

8. POINT No.1: The learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the allegations made against the accused are false. Both the complainant and the accused were working in the same company. The complainant has been deceived of promise to marriage and had forceful sexual relationship by booking room at 204 at Petun/IA Boutizue Hotel and the accused had knowledge about the complainant belonging to ‘Mala’ caste, he had deceived the complainant since 2022 accused has lured the victim to fall in love with the accused and he took victim to Royal In rooms Hotel at ITPL Main road on 6.11.2023 and accused without the wish of the victim had forceful intercourse are all false. In fact the complaint itself is not clear about the allegations made. In fact accused is a married person. He had no intention to marry the victim. The allegations made are all false. With the help of C.W.2/Pradeep Crl.Misc.No.3093/2024 Kumar.K accused has been falsely implicated in this case. Accordingly charge sheet has been filed, petitioner is to be granted conditional bail is the prayer.

9. The learned SPP submits as per the report of the

Investigating Officer, petitioner had deceived knowing the victim is belonging to schedule caste who is from ‘Mala’ caste of Andhra Pradesh’, she had come to work in the company, however the accused had deceived her and forced her to have sexual relationship with a promise to marriage. The offence alleged is punishable with imprisonment for life. Under such circumstances if petitioner is granted bail there is every possibility of petitioner absconding.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits as per

the so called room booked in Royal Inn rooms hotel, the charge sheet discloses room has been booked by victim only on 6.11.2023 at room No.108 and she had checked out of the room alongwith another Crl.Misc.No.3093/2024 person. In fact the petitioner being involved is not at all coming forth from the allegations made in the complaint actually differs from the facts. In fact the petitioner has suppressed the marriage with C.W.5 and he had assured her to marry and he had taken to Royal Inn Hotel at ITPL Main road are all false. It is the victim who had took the accused. In fact it is a plot made by the so called C.W.2 who had got even registered similar crimes against some other employees of same company. Under such circumstances to prove the innocence of the petitioner, petitioner may be granted conditional bail.

11. The learned SPP argues in fact other than the

registration of the crime there is cognizance taken with regard to sexual harassment of victim at work place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal Act 2013) the Branch Manager has initiated the proceedings. Therefore prima facie there is material placed by the prosecution to prove the actual Crl.Misc.No.3093/2024 incidents. If the petitioner is granted conditional bail, at this stage, there is every possibility of tampering the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly seeks rejection of bail petition.

12. On going through the material on record, as per the

charge sheet, the Internal complaints Committee has been constituted by the company. As such by considering the entire materials of the charge sheet, the room has been booked by the victim only in her name does not suffice that accused has not committed any offence. The circumstances under which allegations made against the accused prima facie discloses the nature of offence which is punishable upto imprisonment for life obliges this court not to consider the prayer of the counsel for the accused. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the ‘Negative’.

13. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on Point No.1, I

proceed to pass the following; Crl.Misc.No.3093/2024

ORDER

The Petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is hereby rejected. (Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcript thereof is corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 16th day of April, 2024) (Rajesh Karnam K) LXX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Special Judge, Bengaluru.