LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-1315

FAREEDA KHANUM W Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On July 26, 2022
Fareeda Khanum W Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner defacto complainant under Sec. 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by this Court in Crl.P. No.3865/2021 dtd. 16/2/2021 for the offences punishable under Ss. the offences 354(A), 354(D), 506, 504, 120B, 376, 420 of IPC and Sec. 67A of Information Technology Act (for short ' I.T. Act ') registered by Vidhana Soudha Police Station in Crime No.32/2021.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for the respondent No.1-State and learned Counsel for respondent No.2-accused No.1.

(3.) The case of prosecution is that on the complaint of the petitioner-defacto complainant before Vidhana Soudha police filed on 17/4/2021, the police registered the case for the aforesaid offences against the respondent No.2 herein and another accused Anthony Raj, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner was appointed and was working as Central GST officer and respondent No.2 being accused No.1 working as Superintendent of Central GST, Banashankari, both of them were appointed in the year 2013. In the year 2014, the petitioner got transferred from Mysore to Shivamogga. The respondent No.2-accused No.1 also transferred to Bengaluru. Both of them were acquainted with each other and respondent No.2 said to have promised petitioner to marry her stating that he was a bachelor, though he was married man. On 19/12/2014, there was official training in Hotel Capital, Raj Bhavan Road. Respondent No.2-accused visited her room in the hotel at 8.00 p.m., offered her some alcohol. Though she was not willing to consume alcohol, he convinced her and both of them drunk alcohol. When she was under intoxication, respondent No.2-accused said to have sexually assaulted and they started cohabitating each other. The respondent No.2-accused had sexual intercourse with her number of times. Thereafter, she came to know that respondent No.2-accused was married and therefore, she lodged the complaint.