LAWS(KAR)-2014-1-2

KALYAN RAM JOSHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On January 23, 2014
Kalyan Ram Joshi Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 337/2013.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as per the averments in the complaint are that the informant has been practicing at Mysore for the past two years. Prior to this complaint, informant had filed a complaint before Mahila police station, Mysore against one Shivakumar. In the said case B report was submitted. To question the said B report, informant had approached accused No.2 to engage his services, where she came in contact with the petitioner herein and the said case ended in compromise. It is stated that the petitioner herein had divorced his wife for this informant and told her that he is going to marry her and would secure job for her and also would set up a house at Bangalore. The further allegation is that on 16.11.2013 at 5.30 p.m. petitioner herein said to have called the informant to Hotel Monarch situate on Mysore-Hunsur road offering her to give birthday treat. Though the informant refused, petitioner told the informant that he need to discuss with her about the old case. Thereafter, the informant rushed to the aforesaid hotel, where the petitioner herein said to have committed rape on her and told the informant not to inform anybody and that he would marry her. When she brought this fact to the notice of petitioner s father-accused No.2, he is said to have threatened her saying that his son is innocent and has not committed any wrong and that if she files any complaint he would do away with her life. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered arraying the petitioner as accused No.1 and father of the petitioner as accused No.2.

(3.) Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.