Aravind v. State of Karnataka

NC:(2024:KHC:53330( CRL.P(No.(14275(of(2024( ( ( ( ( IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ST DATED THIS THE 31 DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14275 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

ARAVIND, S/O MURUGAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2/664-2, V.O.C NAGAR, SULLEKARAI VILLAGE, KORAIKUNDU POST, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT, TAMILNADU - 626 003.

…PETITIONER (BY SMT. DIVYA G. MATHEW, ADVOCATE) AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA, KADUGODI PS, BANGALORE RURAL REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP) Digitallytisignedtiby0B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location:0HIGH COURT0OF THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 (FILED U/S.483 BNSS) OF KARNATAKA CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN THE EVENT OF ARREST IN RELATION TO FIR IN CRIME NO.543/2024 REGISTERED BY KADUGODI, POLICE STATION, WHITEFIELD SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU DATED 28.09.2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 318(4), 351(2), 69 OF BNS 2023. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

ORAL ORDER

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent No.1.

¶2This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking bail in connection with a case registered for offenses punishable under Sections 318(4), 351(2), and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

¶3The prosecution's case, as per the FIR lodged by the complainant, is summarized as follows:

i) The complainant, who divorced her former husband in April 2023 and has a child from that marriage, attended an interview at SNS College, Coimbatore, where she met the petitioner-accused. The petitioner introduced himself as a bachelor residing in Whitefield, Bangalore, and claimed to be a lecturer at MVJ College of Engineering. He assured the complainant that he would help her secure a good job.

ii) Believing his assurances, the complainant shared her details with him. Subsequently, they became close, and the accused, who claimed to be unmarried, promised to marry

her. Although the complainant initially refused, she later continued communication with him due to his persistence.

iii) In August 2024, the accused began making late-night calls to the complainant and engaged in indecent conversations. On 27.08.2024, he called the complainant to Bangalore, booked a room, and insisted she stay with him. Despite her refusal, the accused allegedly had physical contact with her and insisted she continue. He also removed all call details and chats from her phone.

iv) Feeling isolated and unable to resist his demands, the complainant complied. However, the accused later began distancing himself. When confronted, he admitted he was already married and had children.

¶4Heard submissions from the learned counsel for both parties.

¶5The complainant alleges that she came into contact with the petitioner in Coimbatore in April 2024, after which they maintained regular communication. The accused invited her to Bangalore, where the alleged incident of forcible sexual intercourse occurred on 27.08.2024 at a hotel. Feeling

betrayed, the complainant contacted the accused again on

17.09.2024. An FIR was subsequently lodged on 28.09.2024.

¶6Whether the petitioner induced the complainant into a physical relationship under the pretext of marriage is a matter that requires thorough investigation. The victim's statement has been recorded, and the facts of the case suggest that further inquiry is necessary.

¶7Considering the circumstances, the petitioner has established a prima facie case for the grant of bail.

¶8Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶9The petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.543/2024 registered by Kadugodi Police Station, White filed Division, Bengaluru, subject to following conditions:

a) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; b) He shall appear regularly on 1st and 15th of every month till pending investigation.

c) He shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses; d) He shall not involve in similar offences in future; e) He shall not leave the territorial limits without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT: BHK