VIKAS KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-police. Petitioner is the sole accused in a criminal case registered in Crime No. 264 of 2015 on the file of Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 420, 506 and 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. After registering the case by the respondent-police Section 376 of IPC has been incorporated in the FIR. The petitioner is injudicial custody since from the date of his arrest. Hence, he has filed this application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking his release. The case on hand relates to the alleged rape said to have committed by this petitioner on a lady on the assurance of marrying her.

(2.) Learned Government Pleader has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that this petitioner had sexual intercourse with the complainant by assuring her to marry. But the petitioner did not keep up his promise and he threatened her with dire consequences and also abused her with filthy language taking her caste. Learned Government Pleader further submits that he has committed heinous offence, hence he is not entitled for bail and requested this Court to dismiss the bail application as there is prima facie case against the present petitioner.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that complainant and petitioner are acquainted with each other since two years and there was a long-standing relationship between the petitioner and the complainant who is major which could not be construed as rape. In support of his argument, he relied upon the judgment in the case of Uday v. State of Kartiataka, 2003 4 SCC 46. Accordingly, learned Counsel requested this Court to grant bail to the petitioner.