KRITHIKA SARASWATHI Vs. K. LAKSHMINARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/complainant has filed this petition under Sec. 439(2) read with 482 of Cr.P.C . seeking cancellation of bail granted to Respondent No.1/accused by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru in Criminal Misc. No.3/2021 vide order dtd. 21/1/2022 in Crime No.71/2020 of Women Police Station, Mangaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 376 , 354 and 506 of IPC.

(2.) The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that, the petitioner/complainant has married to the one Shivaranjan, the son of Respondent No.1/Accused- Laxminarayana Bhat in the year 2015. Since January 2020, accused/Respondent No.2 started sexually harassing the petitioner/complainant. According to the complainant, on 9/12/2020, around 11.30 a.m., accused/Respondent No.2 has committed rape on the petitioner/complainant for the first time in the guest room of the house. It is also alleged that, on 11/12/2020 around 11.30 a.m., he again committed rape on petitioner/complainant for the second time in the pump-set of the Farm House from back side. It is also alleged that, initially, accused/Respondent No.2 was seeking sexual favour from the complainant, who is the Daughter-in-law and she brought it to the notice of her mother-in-law, who in turn, advised her that, there is nothing wrong in continuing such relationship. However, when she brought it to the notice of her husband, he did not believe this aspect and asserted that she is mentally imbalanced and again, when the complainant narrated this matter to her husband, he did not trust her. In the meanwhile, her mother-in-law quarreled with her on the ground that, she has brought it to the notice of her son, who is the husband of the petitioner/complainant. The husband of the complainant without believing her, on the ground that she is mentally imbalanced, left her in her parental house on 20/12/2020. Subsequently, on 29/12/2020 the petitioner/complainant has lodged a complaint in this regard with the concerned police.

(3.) The Respondent No.1/accused was arrested and he was remanded to judicial custody. Later on, he moved for regular bail before the learned Sessions Judge and the same was allowed on 21/1/2021. The said order is being now challenged by the complainant/petitioner herein seeking cancellation of bail.