BASANAGOUDA @ BASAVARAJ Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the sole accused under Sec. 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C. ', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.29/2021 of Yelburga Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354C, 506, 376, 450 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC ', for brevity) and Sec. 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.T. Act ', for brevity).

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the victim lady has filed a complaint stating that she and the petitioner were from the same village and they are relatives and both fell in love. On 03/12/2018 the petitioner committed the sexual intercourse on the complainant in the agriculture field and the petitioner told to the complainant that he will marry her and he will maintain her. Later on again 4-5 times the petitioner went to her house and the land near to her house and had sexual intercourse with her. Apart from it, petitioner took photos of private part of the victim. Later on, parents of the complainant performed her marriage with another person i.e. CW.5. Thereafter she begot a child. After that the petitioner again had sexual intercourse with the victim and he used to make video calls to her between 4 and 5 a.m. early in the morning regularly and asking her to show her private part and used capture the same in his mobile. As the victim stopped calling the petitioner for 15 days the petitioner sent the photos taken through video call to the husband of victim, thereafter the victim has been sent by her husband to her parents ' house on 05.04.2021 on the date on which he received the photos on his mobile. On the next day victim filed the complaint. The complaint came to be registered in Crime No.29/2021 for the offences referred above. The petitioner came to be arrested on 07.04.2021 and he was remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner filed Crl. Misc. No.245/2021 seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by the Principal District and Sessions Judge Koppal, by order dated 07/08/2021. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail.

(3.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.