KABC010089672024
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU(CCH-71)
Dated this the 24th day of April, 2024.
Present: Sri. Rajesh Karnam.K, B.Sc.,LL.B.,LL.M.,
LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Crl.Misc.No.3174/2024
PETITIONER/S:
SUDEEP.A.,
S/o.Arjun,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at No.8, Kateramma temple road,
Channasandra,
Horamavu,
Bengaluru-560 043.
(Rep.by Sri.KL, Advocate).
-V/S-
RESPONDENTS:
1. The State by
K.R.Puram Police Station,
Rep.by Public Prosecutor,
City Civil Court Complex,
Bengaluru-560 001.
2. Gangapriya.G.,
No.79, Near Anjaneya temple,
Bidarahalli village,
bengaluru-49
2
Crl.Misc.No.3174/2024
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for
anticipatory bail as jurisdictional K.R.Puram police
have registered Crime No.231/2024 for the offences
punishable under sections 504,506,417 of IPC and
Sec.3(1)(r),(s),(w) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled
Tribes Act 1989.
2. The complainant submits that, the complaint is
lodged by Respondent No.2 making allegation that
on 23.7.2023
at 9.00
a.m
accused took the
complainant to New Residency Champion Hotel for
the purpose of marriage talks, he booked room
No.308 and had sexual intercourse with her, when
complainant asked the accused to marry her,
accused
refused
as
she
belongs
to
Bhovi
community, later on 11.9.2023 accused called her
and told her that he is going to marry her and on
24.10.2023 around 9.00 am took her to Champion
Hotel at K.R.Puram around 12.00 p.m and used her
sexually, on 28.10.2023 accused created fake face
3
Crl.Misc.No.3174/2024
book account in her name and sent bad messages
to Munanji who was going to marry complainant, at
the time of marriage with Munanji accused showed
him all naked photos of complainant with accused
and stopped the marriage, on 1.12.2023 around
10.00 a.m accused went to her house and told after
3 years he will marry the complainant, but the
parents of
the complainant forced him to marry
immediately as other daughters are attaining the
age of marriage, again on 18.12.2023 and on
24.12.2023. 10.1.2024 and 25.1.2024 took the
complainant to Champion Hotel at K.R.Puram and
had sexual intercourse with her, but refused to
marry the complainant as she belongs to lower
caste. Hence, complainant lodged complaint.
3. The grounds of the petition is that he is innocent of
alleged offence and the petitioner is a law abiding
citizen. The petitioner is a permanent resident of
Bengaluru. The petitioner has not sexually used the
complainant on various dates as alleged in the
alleged complaint at Champion hotel, K.R.Puram.

4
Crl.Misc.No.3174/2024
The petitioner has given moral support to the
complainant after the cancellation of marriage. The
complainant and her parents threatened him to get
marriage with complainant. The complainant has
not produced any cogent evidence in order to
attract the alleged sections 3(1)(w)(i),(r),(s) of
SC/ST (POA) Act 1989. The alleged complaint is
created story of the complainant. The petitioner has
no criminal antecedents. The petitioner has got
valid and tenable defence. The petitioner is ready
and willing to abide by the conditions imposed by
this court. Hence petitioner is forced to come up
with this petition.
4. As against the petition, the learned Special Public
Prosecutor has filed objection submitting that the
victim has been harassed by the respondent. In fact
the marriage fixed and engagement made has been
snapped due to the conduct of the petitioner. The
father of the respondent No.2 is an auto driver and
mother is working as house keeper. The petitioner
has
completed
her
second
PUC
education
in
5
Crl.Misc.No.3174/2024
K.R.Puram,
Sri.Venkateshwara
Science
and
Management College. She has studied I year B.Com
in the year 2021-22. The petitioner is known since
childhood. He came in contact with her and obliged
petitioner to accept his love and as such the
marriage was also broken as on 23.7.2023 at about
9.00 a.m. The petitioner has proposed marriage and
even took her to new Residential Champion Hotel at
about 9.30 p.m, he had took room No.308 and
forced her to have sexual intercourse. Further on
27.8.2023 the engagement fixed with another
person has been broken, that with a promise victim
will be married by the petitioner. Further on
11.9.2023 once again victim has been called and
mentioned about he has to talk with her concerning
marriage
as
on
24.10.2023,
he
took
her
to
Champion hotel where he took room No.402 and
once again had sexual intercourse with the victim,
now after she lost her marriage prospects as per
engagement and when the victim demanded to
marry, he has snapped the relationship. Accordingly
6
Crl.Misc.No.3174/2024
petitioner was forced to come up with this petition.
The learned SPP further submits that there is no any
ground to allow the petition as there is no
exemption under sec.18 and 18A of SC/ST (POA) Act
1989. Hence seeks rejection of bail petition.
5. The Investigating Officer has submitted report. The
physical custody of the petitioner is required for
interrogation and submits C.D.
6.

Heard the arguments of both side and perused the
records.

7.

The following points arise for my consideration;
1.

POINTS
Whether the petition filed by
the
petitioner
ground
for
made
the
out
reason
a
to
considered is bail u/s.438 of
Cr.P.C.,?
3.
8.

What Order?

My answers to the above points are ;
Point No.1:
In the “Negative”
7
Crl.Misc.No.3174/2024
Point No.2: As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1: The learned counsel for the petitioner
argues in fact there is no any part played by the
petitioner in victim moving away from the proposal
with one Munanji which is read from the complaint
itself. The petitioner even has seen whatsapp
message that petitioner is not instrumental to make
believe that the marriage should not be performed
and even the victim herself has sent a letter
through whatsapp as per Annexure-17 placed by
the present petitioner. As per the report made by
the
petitioner
to
Commissioner
of
Police
on
12.3.2024 that the victim is forcing this petitioner to
marry though petitioner was not at all concerned
with the respondent No.2 or her marriage when
emotionally victim had disturbed he helped her to
come out of the same. The respondent has placed
the whatsapp conversation between one Munanji
8
Crl.Misc.No.3174/2024
with that of the victim. As such by placing
photograph of the engagement of the victim
submits these whatsapp messages prima facie
discloses there is no marriage in the case of the
complainant.

She
has
falsely
implicated
this
petitioner. As such the alleged offences are not
made out prima facie. Therefore petitioner may be
granted conditional bail as he is ready to abide by
the any of the conditions imposed by this court.

10.

The learned SPP argues the access to the
whatsapp message of Munanji and that of the victim
clearly establishes the petitioner is having influence
over the victim as he is able even to have marriage
conversation with that of the victim and said
Munanji. Moreover the whatsapp messages are all
matter of evidence as submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. Even if accepted the
complaint
made
is
the
petitioner
had
sexual
intercourse with the victim as per SC/ST (POA) Act
1989, Sec.3(1)(w)(i) the offence has been made out
9
Crl.Misc.No.3174/2024
prima facie. As such as per the prohibition in Sec.18
and 18A the petitioner’s plea cannot be considered.

11.The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on
following citations:
1. Crl.Petn.No.1559/2019 in case of Netra V/s.
State of Karntaka and another of Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka;
2. Crl.A.No.390/2024 in case of Ramanjaneyulu
V/s. Bhaskar Narasimhaiah of Hon’ble HIgh Court
of Karnataka
3. Bail application No.766/2021 and 781/2021 in
case of Sanjay Singh V/s. Govt of NCT Delhi of
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
The principles enumerated in this cases clearly discloses
petitioner
can
observations
be
made
granted
by
the
conditional
Hon’ble
High
bail.

The
Court
of
Karnataka is applicable as per the observations made in
para-9
page-7
of
the
petition.

Accordingly
seeks
conditional bail.

12.

On going through the materials on record, when
prima facie case is made out, the citations relied by the
learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be considered.

10
Crl.Misc.No.3174/2024
In fact the petitioner is able even to have access of the
whatsapp messages of the third person namely Munanji
and that of the victim. Therefore the facts differ from the
citation
relied
by
the
petitioner.

Under
such
circumstances the petition filed by the petitioner at this
stage cannot be entertained is my firm view. Accordingly
point No.1 for consideration is answered in Negative.
13.

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 438 of Cr.P.C., is hereby
rejected.
(Dictated to the stenographer Grade I, transcribed her, transcription corrected,
signed and then pronounced in open court on this the 24th day of April, 2024).

(Rajesh Karnam.K)
LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge, Bengaluru.