1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2473 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SRI ARINDAM NATH
S/O ASHOK KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT NO.3, “GREENS” BUILDING,
ROOM NO.G7, II FLOOR,
20TH I CROSS, EJIPURA,
BENGALURU.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI: S BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VIVEKNAGAR POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI:S. VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.202/2017
(S.C.NO.84/2018) OF VIVEKNAGAR POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
2
SECTIONS 376,384,385,354(C),392,506 OF IPC AND SECTION
66(E) AND 67 OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This petition is filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking
bail in Cr.No.202/2017 registered under sections 376, 384, 506
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sections 66(E) and 67 of the
Information Technology Act, 2000.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned HCGP.
3. Learned HCGP has not filed any statement of
objections, but has orally opposed the petition.
4. Investigation is completed and charge-sheet is laid
against the petitioner for the above offences. The case of the
prosecution is that the prosecutrix was a native of Orissa. She
was employed in Social DNA Labs, ITPL, Whitefield. She came to
Bengaluru in the year 2015. She developed friendship with the
petitioner. It is alleged that, by misusing the friendship, the
3
petitioner committed forcible intercourse on her against her
consent. He recorded the intimate scenes and started
blackmailing the petitioner with intent to extort money. He even
threatened to upload the recorded video and uploaded the same
in the web site.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
offences alleged against the petitioner under sections 66(E) and
67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 are bailable. Even
though there are allegations of extortion, no material is
produced by the Investigating Agency in support of the said
accusation. In support of the allegation attracting section 376 of
Indian Penal Code is concerned, according to the prosecutrix,
she herself was in friendship with the petitioner and the alleged
offence according to her own statement had taken place since
2015. The complaint came to be lodged only on 06.09.2017.
The allegations made in the complaint, even if believed, would
go to show that she was a consenting party and therefore, even
the ingredients of section 376 of Indian Penal Code do not get
attracted to the facts of the case. Learned counsel further points
out that no material is produced to support the allegation that
4
the petitioner had uploaded the intimate scenes as alleged in the
FIR and hence, he seeks enlargement of the petitioner on such
terms and conditions as found proper by this court.
6. Learned HCGP however submits that the evidence
collected by the Investigating Agency prima facie makes out the
offences alleged against the petitioner. Laptop and mobile are
seized from his possession which clinchingly establish the
ingredients of the offences under sections 66(E) and 67 of the
Information Technology Act, 2000. Delay in lodging the
complaint is satisfactorily explained by the prosecutrix. Further
he submits that the petitioner being a native of Bengal, in the
event he is enlarged on bail, he is likely to abscond and make
himself unavailable to face trial and hence, he prays for
dismissal of the petition.
7. Considered the submissions and perused the charge-
sheet papers. Even if the allegations made in the complaint are
accepted on its face value, they would indicate that the
prosecutrix developed intimacy with the petitioner in the year
2015. There are no allegations whatsoever until 2017 that at
5
any point of time the alleged sexual acts between the petitioner
and the prosecutrix were objected by her. It is only in the year
2017 it is alleged that the petitioner started blackmailing the
prosecutrix with a view to extort money from her. As per the
prosecutrix, she has paid a sum of Rs.8,000/- to the petitioner in
this regard. A reading of the FIR indicates that the petitioner
and the prosecutrix are working in the same company. There is
nothing to suggest that during their long lasting relationship
there was any specific instance of extortion. In any case, the
evidence in this regard is already collected by the Investigating
Agency. As rightly pointed out by the learned HCGP, laptop and
mobile used for the commission of the above offences are
already seized and are produced before the Court. Therefore,
there cannot be any apprehension of the petitioner tampering
with the said evidence. Having regard to the nature of the
allegations made against the petitioner, in my view, the custody
of the petitioner cannot be extended solely by way of
punishment. In order to allay the apprehension expressed by
the learned HCGP, the petitioner could be put on terms to secure
his presence for the purpose of trial.
6
8. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.
a) Petitioner/accused is ordered to be enlarged on
bail on obtaining a bond in a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two
sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional court.
b) Petitioner shall appear before the court as and
when required.
c) Petitioner shall not threaten or allure the
prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.
d) Petitioner shall not get involved in similar
offences.
e) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial
Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bss