T. SREEKANTHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release him on anticipatory bail in Crime No.164/2020 of Mysore South Police for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel Sri.Dhiraj A.K. for the petitioner-accused virtually and the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.Mahesh Shetty for the respondent No.1-State.

(3.) The unfounded facts of the case of the complainant is that the victim has completed her B.A. degree and was working in Chetan Book House and residing at her parental aunt's house in Mysuru. On 22.1.2015 when the petitioner came to the book stall to purchase books, was acquainted with the victim and her friend Pallavi. Thereafter, they developed some intimacy and on 11.7.2017 at about 6.30 p.m. the petitioner-accused invited the victim for a long drive and he has shown his house to her. Thereafter, on the way from his house, he stopped his bike at about 7.30 p.m. in an isolated place and when she asked the reason for stopping the motorbike, he kissed her lips and despite her resistance he has touched her body and when she started sobbing, he consoled her and asked her not to reveal anybody and dropped to her house. It is further alleged that, the petitioner had promised to marry the complainant. She did not give any complaint. After the alleged incident the petitioner-accused took her to the same place several times and on October 2019, they had a physical relationship. Whenever the complainant proposes for marriage, the petitioner informed her that he had taken KAS exam, after clearing the same and getting a job, he would marry to the complainant and in that context he also said that she belonging to a different caste and family may not support and did not accept the same. It is further alleged that on 24.3.2020 the complainant had called the brother of the petitioner and informed him about the relationship with the petitioner and it is alleged that he had also blocked her number and on 17.5.2020 the complainant along with her paternal uncle visited the house of the petitioner and informed his parents about her relationship with the petitioner and the father of the petitioner asked the caste of the complainant and sought for 10 days time to enquire with the petitioner and take a decision.