Karnataka HC Releases Accused that Promised Marriage and Obtained Consent for Coitus

Must Read

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus....

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Follow us

The Karnataka High Court granted bail on several conditions to the accused who had promised to marry the victim and obtained her consent for sexual act several times. The accused had thereafter turned hostile to the victim.

Brief Facts of the Case

In Sri Rakesh Jadav N vs State Of Karnataka, on 26 November, 2020, the factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner and the victim both worked in the same shop. The petitioner had promised the victim that he will marry her and obtained the consent for sexual act-and he subjected her for sexual act several times and thereafter he turned hostile to the victim. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(b) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

Submission of the Petitioner 

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation made in the complaint that the petitioner is the son of the owner, is not correct and he is also a worker. The learned counsel also submitted that the allegation made against the petitioner was only with an intention to enrich and the same is evident from the records. The learned counsel also contended that the victim took money for not filing any complaint. Thereafter, she filed the complaint on 28.08.2020. The learned counsel also submitted that the case is fit to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

Submission of the Respondent 

The learned Government Pleader, of the High Court, appearing for the State, submitted that the offence alleged against the petitioner is heinous one. The petitioner committed the sexual act with the victim several times with a promise to marry her and thereafter he turned hostile. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

Observation of the Court

The Court observed that the petitioner obtained the consent of the victim for sexual act with a promise to marry her and thereafter he turned hostile. No doubt, the offence alleged against the petitioner was a serious one and the victim girl also gave consent for sexual act and thereafter an undertaking was given that she will not file any complaint and also received some amount. When such being the factual aspects of the case, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The Court decided to impose certain conditions to protect the interest of the prosecution.

Order of the Court 

The Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to following conditions:

  1. The petitioner is supposed to surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the petitioner is also supposed to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
  2. The petitioner is not supposed to indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
  3. The petitioner is supposed to co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.
  4. The petitioner is not supposed to leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge-sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.
  5. The petitioner is supposed to mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge-sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.

Click here to view the original judgment


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -