SIDDU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 222/2013 of Babaleshwar Police Station registered on 18.11.2013 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Victim is one Laxmi. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was having love affair with the deceased Laxmi and when he came back to the village during November 2013, the petitioner has refused to marry the victim and therefore the victim had committed suicide by consuming poison.

(2.) Sri. Shivanand Pattanshetty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not responsible for the death of the deceased and hence, he may be directed to be enlarge on bail, since he is serving in the army.

(3.) Sri. Sanjay A. Patil, learned Addl. SPP on the other hand submits that deceased has written a death note, in which she has stated that on the promise of marrying the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her and subsequently he has refused to marry her. Since she has lost her reputation in the public, she had committed suicide. He further submits that the offence is one of atrocity against woman and since the medical report is yet to be received insofar as subjecting the deceased for sexual intercourse, the grant of bail at this stage can caused harm to the investigation. Therefore, he submits that application may be rejected. I have gone through the death note written by the deceased. The contents of the same reveals that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the deceased and thereafter he refused to marry her. Deceased is a young girl of 20 years. The petitioner despite being a person employed in the army has committed sexual atrocity. The death note indicates that though the deceased was under menses period the petitioner had committed sexual intercourse with her by force. Whether the same amounts to rape has to be found during investigation. However, the physical presence of the petitioner with the police is essential in such cases and Court cannot deal with such atrocity against woman lightly. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner will send wrong signals to the society. Hence, the petition is dismissed.