S. SUNDAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent -police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest of the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC registered by respondent police station Crime No. 583/2013. The brief facts of the prosecution case as per the averments of the complaint are that the complainant is residing separately from her husband since 4 years. She had two children by name Nithish Kumar and Shiresh. She is doing flower vending business and also working as maid servant. She used to sell flowers at Shiva temple and also used to give flowers to houses. During the said time, the petitioner got acquaintance with the complainant. He suggested to admit the children of the complainant at Kerala Niketan School. Complainant accompanied the petitioner and got admitted to the school. As the earning of the complainant was not enough, the petitioner suggested her to work in his office called as B -2 Media Public Relations and assured to pay salary of Rs. 3,500/ - per month. The complainant joined the office on 14.6.2011. The petitioner was alone in the said office and initially he gave salary for two months. In the third month, the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the complainant and it continued for a period of two years. When the complainant requested for salary, the petitioner stated to secure the same in her account. He also threatened to take away the life of the complainant and her children, if the matter is disclosed. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered against the petitioner.

(2.) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State.

(3.) AS against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the material on record goes to show there is prima facie case against the present petitioner. He submitted that the offence alleged against the petitioner is serious in nature and the case is still under investigation. Hence, he submitted that petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.