MANJUNATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.3/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 506 , 34 , 420 , 376 , 312 , 114 of IPC.

(2.) The case made out by the prosecution is that the complainant was acquainted with the petitioner who was working for Toyota Kirloskar Company and had made a promise to marry and had sexual intercourse with the complainant for about 2 to 3 years. It is stated that thereafter when the complainant had conceived, the petitioner had forced her to take medication to induce abortion. In the light of the unwillingness of the petitioner to enter into wedlock, complaint came to be filed. The investigation is in progress. It is stated that petitioner is in custody since 30.03.2019.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that admittedly, it was a consensual relationship between the petitioner and the victim and the age of the victim is to be taken note of. Petitioner and victim were not minors as on the date during which the alleged offence is said to have been perpetrated. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the complaint itself narrates that the petitioner and the victim have married. It is further stated that the complaint was filed when the relationship with the petitioner was strained, but however, subsequent events have resulted in petitioner agreeing to live with the victim as husband and wife and hence, it is contended that no offence under Section 376 is made out.