KABC010130242024

IN THE COURT OF LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND

SESSIONS JUDGE AND JUDGE , AT BENGALURU
(CCH-82)
Present:
Sri Santhosh Gajanan Bhat, B.A.L., LL.B. ,
LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City (CCH-82)
(Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases
related to elected former and sitting MPs/ MLAs
in the State of Karnataka)

Dated this the 31st day of May, 2024

Crl.Misc. No.4765/2024

PETITIONER: Smt. Bhavani Revanna

W/o Revanna H.D.
Aged about 55 years
r/o Chennambika Nilaya
Chennambika Circle
Holenarasipura
Hassan-573 211

(Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, Learned Senior

Counsel appearing for Sri Girish Kumar
B.M. Advocate for petitioner)

V/s
RESPONDENT: State of Karnataka by K.R.Nagara
Police Station, Mysuru Rural Sub-
 2 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

Division, Mysuru District

(Sri Jagadish B.N., Learned Special

Public Prosecutor)

ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION FILED UNDER

SECTION 438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed U/s.438

of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.,’ for short) by the

petitioner in Cr.No.149/2024 on the file of learned XLII ACMM,

Bengaluru, which was initially registered before the learned Prl.

Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R.Nagar, Mysuru District for the

offences punishable under Sec.364(A), 365, r/w Sec.34 of the

Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short).

2. The brief facts leading to the case are that a written

information came to be filed before the K.R.Nagara Police Station

on 2.5.2024 at about 9.00 p.m. in the night by the complainant

stating that his mother was working in the house of accused No.1

for about six years and of late she had left the said job and was
 3 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

working as a daily wage labourer in their village. It is stated that

about 3 to 4 days prior to Parliament Elections, accused No.2

Satish Babanna who was known to them had come to their house

and had requested his mother to accompany him and later on she

had returned back on the date of election. It is also narrated that on

29.04.2024 at about 9.00 p.m. once again Accused No.2 Satish

Babanna had come to their house and had requested her to

accompany him as directed by accused No.1 H.D.Revanna, since a

case was lodged against her. However, she had not returned back

and on the next day the complainant's friends had brought to his

notice about the viral video that was being circulated pertaining to

the sexual assault on his mother and when he had requested

accused No.2 Satish Babanna to send his mother back, he had

declined to do so and apprehending about her safety and well

being, he had lodged complaint on 2.5.2024. Based on the same, a

FIR came to be registered.

 4 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

3. The petitioner has contended that though she was not

arraigned as accused in the FIR, it is circulated in the print and

electronic media that she has been issued with notice for

appearance before the Investigating Agency and same has caused

serious apprehension in her mind that the Investigating Agency

would take her into custody due to political vengeance and also

with an intention to humiliate and tarnish her image in the society.

It is also been contended that her husband Sri Revanna H.D. who

was arraigned as accused No.1 was arrested and later on he was

admitted to bail by the order of this Court in

Crl.Misc.No.4229/2024 dated 13.05.2024 and as such a serious

apprehension has been caused of arrest by the respondent police

and accordingly she has filed instant bail petition.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner

has also contended that there are no materials to indicate of overt

act in the above case. The complaint if read in its totality would

indicate that three days prior to elections, the victim who is also
 5 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

mother of the complainant was requested to accompany accused

No.2 as per the say of the present petitioner. However, on the date

of elections she had returned back and as such the alleged incident

of kidnapping or abduction cannot be pointed against her.

5. It has also been submitted by the learned Senior

Counsel Sri Sandesh J. Chouta appearing on behalf of the advocate

appearing for petitioner that there are no iota of materials to

indicate the involvement of the petitioner herein in the commission

of alleged offences. At the outset it is his submission that the

invocation of the provision of Sec.364-A of IPC itself is erroneous

and the basic ingredients to attract the rigors of the same are not

made out by the prosecution. The learned Senior Counsel has also

taken this court through the various authorities of Hon'ble Apex

Court wherein it has been laid down that the registration of FIR

against petitioner is not sine qua non for seeking anticipatory bail.

In order to buttress his submission he has relied upon the

celebrated judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1980)2

 6 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

SCC 565 (Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vs. State of

Punjab) wherein it has been held as follows:-

“35. Section 438(1) of the Code lays

down a condition which has to be satisfied
before anticipatory bail can be granted. The
applicant must show that he has "reason to
believe" that he may be arrested for a non-
bailable offence. The use of the expression
"reason to believe" shows that the belief that
the applicant may be so arrested must be
founded on reasonable grounds. Mere 'fear' is
not 'belief', for which reason it is not enough
for the applicant to show that he has some sort
of a vague apprehension that some one is going
to make an accusation against him, in
pursuance of which he may be arrested. The
grounds on which the belief of the applicant is
based that he may be arrested for a non-
bailable offence, must be capable of being
examined by the court objectively, because it is
then alone that the court can determine
whether the applicant has reason to believe
that he may be so arrested. Section 438(1),
 7 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

therefore, cannot be invoked on the basis of

vague and general allegations, as if to arm
oneself in perpetuity against a possible arrest.
Otherwise, the number of applications for
anticipatory bail will be as large as, at any
rate, the adult populace. Anticipatory bail is a
device to secure the individual's liberty; it is
neither a passport to the commission of crimes
nor a shield against any and all kinds of
accusations, likely or unlikely.”

6. Learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on

the judgment of the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court

reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1 (Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of

Delhi) wherein similar ratio has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex

Court. It has also been submitted by the learned Senior Counsel

that the remand application filed by the Investigating Agency at the

first instance does not disclose of any overt act and whereas the 3 rd

remand application which has been filed on 6.5.2024 indicates

upon the fact that the victim was traced and even at that point of

time also her statement was not recorded. It has also been
 8 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

submitted that in any of the said instance, the role of the present

petitioner was not forthcoming and in spite of the same, an attempt

has been made to arrest and apprehend the petitioner only due to

political vengeance. The learned Senior counsel has also pointed

out to the letter which was addressed by the petitioner herein to the

Additional Director General of Police and Head of the SIT,

Bengaluru on 15.5.2024 wherein she has specifically stated that she

was not served with any notice either under Sec.41(a) of Cr.P.C.,

or Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., to give her statement as a witness. It has also

been argued that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and she is

ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that may be

imposed by this Court and as such being dutiful citizen she has

requested the Investigating Agency to specifically state the time

and place whenever she is required to assist them. The learned

Senior Counsel by pointing out to the same has vehemently argued

that there is no necessity for the custodial interrogation of the

petitioner and it is his submission that though the Investigating

 9 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

Agency may contend that certain aspects are to be unearthed only

after interrogation of the accused person, the same does not require

custodial interrogation. He has also argued that the petitioner

herein belongs to fairer sex and as such the court at the time of

considering the bail application has to keep in mind about the

welfare legislation under Sec.437(1) of Cr.P.C., wherein grant of

bail to the accused person is under the age of sixteen years or is a

woman or is sick or infirm has been dealt. In order to buttress the

same, he has placed his reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex

Court reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 (Satender Kumar Antil V/s

Central Bureau of Investigation) wherein it has been held as

follows:-

“78. Section 437 of the Code empowers the

Magistrate to deal with all the offenses while
considering an application for bail with the
exception of an offense punishable either with life
imprisonment or death triable exclusively by the
Court of Sessions. The first proviso facilitates a
court to conditionally release on bail an accused if
 10 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

he is under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is

sick or infirm, as discussed earlier. This being a
welfare legislation, though introduced by way of a
proviso, has to be applied while considering release
on bail either by the Court of Sessions or the High
Court, as the case may be. The power under Section
439 of the Code is exercised against an order
rejecting an application for bail and against an
offence exclusively decided by the Court of Sessions.
There cannot be a divided application of proviso to
Section 437, while exercising the power under
Section 439. While dealing with a welfare
legislation, a purposive interpretation giving the
benefit to the needy person being the intendment is
the role required to be played by the court. We do
not wish to state that this proviso has to be
considered favourably in all cases as the
application depends upon the facts and
circumstances contained therein. What is required
is the consideration per se by the court of this
proviso among other factors.”

7. By pointing out the same, lastly it has been submitted

that in the absence of any prima facie materials to attract the rigors
 11 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

of Sec.364-A IPC, the petitioner cannot be arrested and remanded

to custody. The last leg of submission which has been made by the

learned Senior Counsel is that there are sufficient materials to

indicate apprehension of arrest in the mind of the petitioner and as

such the present bail petition is maintainable and accordingly he

has sought for admitting petitioner to anticipatory bail.

8. Per contra on request the learned Special Public

Prosecutor Sri Jagadish B.N. has put in his appearance on behalf of

the respondent police. The learned SPP has filed detailed statement

of objections interalia denying the averments made in the bail

petition. In the statement of objections the prosecution has

contended that there are sufficient materials to indicate about the

overt act of the petitioner herein. It is also been submitted that on

13.5.2024 during the course of investigation they had invoked

provision of Sec.120-B and 109 of IPC with due permission from

the jurisdictional Court. It is also been submitted that the technical

data which were obtained during the course of investigation

 12 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

discloses active role of the petitioner herein, which is also

mentioned in detail in the CD which is enclosed along with the

objections. The learned SPP has also vehemently argued that the

petitioner was in continuous contact with accused No.2 through

mobile of her driver and with other accused person i.e., accused

No.7 Rajagopal in whose house the victim was confined. It is his

submission that the said aspect was corroborated from the data

which was retrieved from the phone of accused No.7 Rajagopal

since it had auto-recorded the conversations. It is also been

submitted by the learned SPP that at the instance and directions of

the petitioner, the victim was taken away by accused No.2 Satish

Babanna to the Farm House of accused No.7 for the purpose of her

confinement in a deceitful manner stating that the victim was

implicated in some criminal case. It is further argued by the learned

SPP that the statement recorded also indicates that the petitioner

herein abused the victim in filthy language and also had denied to

provide clothes would indicate the manner in which she had

 13 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

intended to commit the offence. Further it has been submitted that

the act of the petitioner in helping her son to commit sexual abuse

and exploitation of several women and recording of the sexual act

would shake the collective conscience of not only the people in the

region, but also of the entire country since the petitioner herself is

having political clout and also is financially sound. It is also been

submitted that the technical evidence, call data records, messages

and recordings of telephone conversation found in the mobile of

accused No.7 which was extracted during the course of

investigation would clearly point out the active role of the

petitioner. It is further submitted that the custodial interrogation of

the petitioner is very much essential and also she belonging to a

powerful political family, it would be impossible to elicit any

information from her if not remanded to custody. It is also been

submitted that the statement of the victim recorded under Sec.161

of Cr.P.C., and another statement recorded under Sec.164 of

Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate would clearly point out

 14 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

towards the act committed by the petitioner. The manner in which

the victim was initially taken from her house at the behest of

petitioner herein in a deceitful manner and later on creating an

apprehension of death or grievous hurt to the son of the victim

would indicate the existence of a prima facie material. Further, it

has been submitted that if the petitioner is not subjected to

custodial interrogation, then there are chances of flight risk and

also fleeing from the investigation process. It is lastly submitted

that the entire incident of abduction was planned and committed by

the petitioner by entering into conspiracy with other accused

persons in order to shield her son and accused No.1 from

likelihood of facing criminal cases of ravishing women and sexual

assault. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for

anticipatory bail in the wake of serious allegations being leveled

against her.

9. In order to buttress his submission the learned SPP has

relied upon the following judgments which are as follows:-

 15 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

1. Shaik Ahmed V. State of Telangana (2021)

9 SCC 59 Wherein it has been discussed about the
principles required to interpret the provision of Section
364-A of IPC.

2. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 196 (William Stephen

v. State of Τ.Ν. and another) In this case also the
Hon'ble Apex Court had discussed the ingredients
required to establish for invocation of Sec.364-A that if
the act of abduction or kidnapping is coupled with
threat to cause death or hurt to such person, an offence
under Sec.364-A would be attracted.

3. Jashanmal Jhamatmal ν. Brahmanand

Sarupanand, 1943 SCC OnLine Sind CC 42. The
aforesaid ratio has been again laid down.

4. State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8

SCC 21, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
the court cannot in detail examine the evidence and
only to ensure that there is no pre-judging or prejudice
a brief examination is to be made by the court to be
satisfied about the existence or otherwise of a prima
facie case.

5. State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad (2017) 2

SCC 178 In the above case the Hon'ble Apex Court has
 16 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

succinctly discussed about the various parameters

which is to be considered at the time of adjudicating a
bail petition.

6. Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4

SCC 497. In the above case the Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that the court has to weigh the liberty of an
individual with the serious nature of accusations made
against the accused and while considering the bail
application a prima facie conclusion must be drawn by
the court to be supported by reasons which it had
arrived having regard to vital facts of the case brought
on record.

7. Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar alias Deepu

Alias Deepak and Another 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1059. In the above case the Hon'ble Apex Court has
considered the role of the accused who was in a
domineering position of influence as he was the of
sitting MLA which would be a threat to the witnesses.

8. State of Jharkhand v. Sandeep Kumar 2024

SCC OnLine SC 240. The Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that the consideration that would normally weigh
with the court in dealing with their petition or nature
and seriousness of offence, character of evidence,
 17 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

circumstances, which are peculiar to the accused and

reasonable possibility of securing his presence.

9. Indresh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh

and Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 938/2022 (Arising out
of SLP (Crl.) No.4982 of 2022) The Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that the court can look into the records
including the statement of witnesses under Sec.164 /
161 of Cr.P.C., and though statement under Sec.161 of
Cr.P.C., may not be admissible in evidence, they are
relevant in considering the prima facie case against an
accused in an application filed for seeking bail.

10. Ramesh v. State of Karnataka in Crl. P.

No. 102676/2022 connected with Crl. P 102744/2022 -
High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The
Hon'ble High Court was pleased to reject the bail
petition by looking in to the statement recorded under
Sec.164 of Cr.P.C.

11. Prashant Tayal v. State of NCT of Delhi-

Bail Application No. 4351/2021- High Court of Delhi,
New Delhi. Principles required to be considered for
attracting the rigors of Sec.364-A has been discussed.
 18 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

10. By relying upon the aforesaid authorities the learned

Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that there are

sufficient materials to point out the active involvement against the

petitioner herein. Lastly, it is his submission that the grant of bail

to accused No.1 by this court which was filed under Sec.439 of

Cr.P.C., cannot be considered in par with this petition as the

parameters for considering the regular bail and anticipatory bail are

entirely different. It is also been submitted that the petitioner

cannot seek the ground of parity in the above case. He has

furnished the CD files, statement of the victim, witnesses recorded

under Sec.161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., along with CDRs and has

requested the Court to reject the bail petition.

11. Heard and perused the materials.

12. The points that arise for my consideration are;

1. Whether the petitioner has made out

grounds for allowing the bail application
filed U/Sec.438 of Cr.P.C.,?
 19 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

2. What Order ?

13. My finding to the above points are as under;

Point No.1 : In the Negative

Point No.2 : As per order below,
for the following;

REASONS

14. Point No.1:- The brief facts in narrow compass in the

above case is that a FIR came to be registered on 2.5.2024 at about

9.00 p.m. The main allegations which has been leveled is that the

complainant's mother who was working as maid in the house of

petitioner for many years and of late, she had left the job. The

complaint itself indicates that some of the friends of complainant

had reportedly stated to him that his mother who is the victim, was

subjected to sexual assault and even the same was circulated

through viral videos. It is also relevant to note that the victim was

allegedly taken out from her house by accused No.2 Satish

Babanna, who has been arrested and remanded to custody. The

complaint averments indicates that on the fateful day the accused

 20 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

No.2 had visited the house of complainant and had allegedly stated

that she was being called upon by accused No.1. As such the

victim had accompanied with accused No.2 and thereafter, she was

not heard for about 4 days and later on a complaint was filed on

2.5.2024 at about 9.00 p.m. before the K.R.Nagar Police station.

15. In the instant case, the learned senior counsel for

petitioner has vehemently argued that the prosecution has not made

out the grounds for invoking the provisions of Sec.364-A of IPC. It

is his submission that when the complaint is read in its totality, it

would indicate that about 3 to 4 days prior to election, the victim

was made to accompany accused No.2 at the behest of petitioner

herein and subsequently, she had returned back on the date of

election. It is his submission that at the second instance it is

narrated that the victim was summoned by accused No.1 and as

such the invoking the provision under Sec.364-A of IPC would not

be appropriate. It is also been argued that in order to attract the

rigors of Sec.364-A, the prosecution has to establish that a act of

 21 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

kidnapping or abduction had taken place and there was threat to

cause death or hurt and such threat was given in order to compel

the Government or any organization or any other person to do or to

abstain from doing any act or ransom. When the aforesaid aspect is

appreciated the submission of the learned Senior Counsel to some

extent seems to be plausible. However, it is to be kept in mind that

the FIR cannot be considered as an encyclopedia to contain each

and every minute details of the incident. At the first instance it is to

be appreciated that the complainant who is none other than the son

of the victim was anxiously waiting for the return of his mother

since he had come to know about viral of a abusive and explicit

video of his mother through his friends in the village. It is also

relevant to note that at the first instance the victim was taken from

her house under the pretext that the petitioner herein Smt.Bhavani

Revanna had called her and later on she had returned back on the

date of election. At the same time, on 29.4.2024 she was once

again called upon to accompany accused No.2 Satish Babanna by

 22 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

stating that she was called upon by accused No.1 H.D.Revanna. It

is relevant to note that as per the averments of complaint, the

complainant had later on requested the accused No.2 Satish

Babanna about the whereabouts of his mother, however, it is stated

by him that his mother was implicated in a criminal case and as

such the concerned police were in search of her. At that point of

time, he had preferred to lodge a complaint, on the basis of the

same the criminal law was set into motion.

16. By looking in to the aforesaid aspects, the court has to

appreciate whether the ingredients of Sec.364-A is made out. In

order to consider the provision is extracted which reads as

follows:-

Sec.364-A of IPC Kidnapping for

ransom, etc.

Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person

or keeps a person in detention after such
kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to
cause death or hurt to such person, or by his
conduct gives rise to a reasonable
 23 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

apprehension that such person may be put to

death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such
person in order to compel the Government or
any foreign State or international inter-
governmental organisation or any other
person] to do or abstain from doing any act or
to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with
death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also
be liable to fine.

17. On perusal of the aforesaid section, it would clearly

indicate that in order to attract the rigors of the aforesaid provision
the prosecution is required to establish the following aspects.

a) kidnapping or abduction of any person or

keeping him under detention

b) threatens to cause death or hurt to such person

c) causes hurt or death to such person in order to

compel the government or any foreign state or any
governmental organisation or any other person to
do or to abstain form doing any act or to pay a
ransom.

18. The first and foremost aspect which is required to be

established is that there should be an act of kidnapping or

abduction. In the instant case, admittedly, the victim is not a minor

 24 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

nor is alleged to have been kidnapped from the country. However,

the ingredients of abduction as defined under Sec.362 of IPC at

best could be pressed into. At this juncture, at the cost of repetition,

the allegation which has been leveled in the complaint is to be

looked into. Admittedly, the victim is also known to the

complainant and also accused No.2. Absolutely, there is no qualms

that the victim was working in the house of petitioner for many

years. It is contended that the petitioner’s son had ravished her and

as such a separate complaint was filed. However nothing as such

has been narrated in the complaint and all that it is stated is that the

accused No.2 had insisted the complainant to send his mother i.e.,

victim with him on 29.4.2024. It is stated that the victim was

allegedly called by the accused No.1 herein. At this juncture, it is

relevant to note that immediately after viral of sexually explicit

video the victim was not found in the house. The submissions

made by the learned SPP that she was taken out from the house by

accused No.2 in a deceitful manner seems to be plausible. It is

 25 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

pertinent to note that initially prior to election itself the victim was

called upon by the petitioner herein and was returned back to her

house. However, subsequently on 29.4.2024 she was again called

and her whereabouts were not known. Though it is submitted that

there was no demand for ransom or any threat being given to any

person on life or causing hurt to the victim, it is also relevant to

take into consideration that the alleged incident was committed

only to ensure that the victim would not lodge any complaint or

give any statement. In order to better appreciate the said provision,

it would be worthwhile to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court reported in the case of 2024 SCC OnLine SC 196

(William Stephen Vs. State of Tamil Nadu) wherein it has been

held as follows:-

“10. The first ingredient of Section 364A is

that there should be a kidnapping or abduction of
any person or a person should be kept in
detention after such kidnapping or abduction. If
the said act is coupled with a threat to cause
 26 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

death or hurt to such person, an offence under

Section 364A is attracted. If the first act of
kidnapping or abduction of a person or keeping
him in detention after such kidnapping is coupled
with such conduct of the person kidnapping
which gives rise to a reasonable apprehension
that the kidnapped or abducted person may be
put to death or hurt, still Section 364A will be
attracted. In the light of this legal position, now
we refer to the evidence of the child-PW-2.”

19. The aforesaid judgment clearly establishes the fact

that when a person kept in detention after kidnapping and is

coupled with such conduct of the person kidnapping, which give

rise to a reasonable apprehension that kidnapped or abducted

person may be put to death or hurt, the provision of Sec.364-A

would be attracted. It is needless to mention that the threat or

apprehension of putting a person to death or hurt need not be given

to the victim. By looking in to the said aspects, it is appropriate to

ascertain whether the rigors of the aforesaid offence are made out

against the petitioner herein. In the instant case, at the time of

 27 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

lodging of the complaint, the complainant was unaware of the

whereabouts of his mother and as such under apprehension of her

life the aforesaid complaint was filed. It is also pertinent to note

that the learned Senior counsel has vehemently argued that already

the victim has been traced and her statement has been recorded and

hence the custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is not

required. Even though the name of the petitioner herein does not

forth come in the complaint, the same will not be a hindrance to

file a anticipatory bail petition as it is settled law that mere

apprehension of arrest is suffice.

20. With respect to the prima facie materials available

against the petitioner herein, I have carefully appreciated the

materials produced by the petitioner’s counsel and also by the

learned SPP. It is pertinent to note that the victim was traced

subsequently on 4.5.2024. Though it is argued at length that the

victim was rescued and later on it is submitted by the learned SPP

that the victim had herself ran away from her confinement from the
 28 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

farm house of accused No.7 Rajagopal, the same would indicate

that the victim was abducted at one point of time and was kept

under detention in the farm house of accused No.7 Rajagopal. It is

pertinent to note that the materials which has been produced when

examined with the statement of the victim would indicate that

initially the victim was taken away from her house by accused

No.2 Satish Babanna under the pretext of she being summoned by

accused No.1. However, the materials which has been produced

and collected during the course of investigation would reveal that

the accused No.2 had taken the victim to the house of petitioner

herein at K.R.Nagar wherein she was performing the rituals due to

the death of her brother. The statement recorded also indicates of

abusive words being hurled by the petitioner and also her active

role in directing accused No.2 to take her away to a secluded, safe

place. It is also pertinent to note that the mobile phone of victim

was taken away by accused No.2 at the instance of the petitioner

who had directed him to throwaway in midway to her confinement

 29 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

place. However, the record indicates that the mobile phone was

recovered from accused No.4 by following due process of law. It is

also relevant to note that the victim herself has given a statement

under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate that she

was detained in the house of accused No.7 Rajagopal. Prior to that

the statement of the victim indicates that the accused No.2 had

taken her to the house of the petitioner and at that place, the

victim’s sister was also present and subsequently she was called

alone to the room where the petitioner was staying and there a

direction was given to take her to the farmhouse of accused No.7.

The statement of the victim’s sister also corroborates the same.

21. At this juncture, the question which is required to be

considered is the extent to which the statement can be relied upon

or in other words whether the court can look in to the statement

recorded under Sec.161 or Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. It is the settled law

as discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Indresh

 30 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another’ mentioned supra, which is

as follows:

“The High Court has ignored the

materials on record including incriminating
statements of witnesses under Section 164/161
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Statements
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. may not be
admissible in evidence, but are relevant in
considering the prima facie case against an
accused in an application for grant of bail in
case of grave offence.

The High Court has granted the

respondent-accused bail without the heinous
nature of the allegations against him, the
gravity of the offence alleged and severity of the
punishment in the event of ultimate conviction,
only because a co-accused had also been
granted bail by the High Court.”

22. The aforesaid judgment clearly indicates that the

statements recorded under Sec.164/161 of Cr.P.C., though

 31 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

inadmissible in evidence, are relevant to consider the prima facie

case against the accused in an application for grant of bail in

matters pertaining to grave offences.

23. The statements recorded would specifically indicate of

overt act against the petitioner herein at this juncture. It is made

clear that the court is not expressing any opinion with respect to the

merits of the case, but is only appreciating the materials to

ascertain the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case. That

apart, I have also appreciated the fact that on 13.5.2024 the

prosecution has obtained necessary permission from the

jurisdictional court with respect to invoking the provision of

Sec.120-B of IPC. It is settled law that the conspiracy will always

be hatched in darkness and secrecy and there may not be any direct

evidences. However, the same is required to be considered from

the circumstantial materials which would be available. In the case

on hand, the act of accused No.2 taking the victim from her house

at the inception by stating that accused No.1 had summoned her

 32 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

and later on taking her to the place where the petitioner herein was

residing and from there at her behest taking her to the farmhouse of

accused No.7 coupled with the continuous telephonic calls being

made between accused No.2 and petitioner and subsequently, the

victim escaping from her confinement and reaching the house of

her sister would clearly point out a strong prima facie case.

Admittedly, the veracity of the same can only be ascertained at the

time of completion of investigation or trial. However, at this

juncture, the prosecution has made out existence of a prima facie

case.

24. The court has also carefully appreciated the essential

ingredients which are required to consider the bail petition. In this

regard, the court has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 109 (Gurwinder Singh

Vs. State of Punjab) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held as

under:
 33 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

32. On a consideration of various factors

such as nature of offence, length of punishment
(if convicted), age, character, status of accused
etc., the Courts must ask itself:

2.1 Whether the accused is a flight risk

2.2. Whether there is apprehension of the

accused tampering with the evidence?

2.3 Whether there is apprehension of

accused influencing witnesses?

33. The question of entering the ‘second

test’ of the inquiry will not arise if the ‘first test’
is satisfied. And merely because the first test is
satisfied, that does not mean however that the
accused is automatically entitled to bail. The
accused will have to show that he successfully
passes the ‘tripod test’.

Test for Rejection of Bail : Guidelines as

laid down by Supreme Court in Watali's Case

34. In the previous section, based on a

textual reading, we have discussed the broad
inquiry which Courts seized of bail applications
 34 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

under Section 43D(5) UAP Act r/w Section 439

CrPC must indulge in. Setting out the
framework of the law seems rather easy, yet the
application of it, presents its own complexities.
For greater clarity in the application of the test
set out above, it would be helpful to seek
guidance from binding precedents. In this
regard, we need to look no further than Watali's
case which has laid down elaborate guidelines
on the approach that Courts must partake in, in
their application of the bail limitations under
the UAP Act. On a perusal of paragraphs 23 to
29 and 32, the following 8-point propositions
emerge and they are summarised as follows:

 Meaning of ‘Prima facie true’ [para

23] : On the face of it, the materials must show
the complicity of the accused in commission of
the offence. The materials/evidence must be
good and sufficient to establish a given fact or
chain of facts constituting the stated offence,
unless rebutted or contradicted by other
evidence.
 35 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

 Degree of Satisfaction at Pre-

Chargesheet, Post Chargesheet and Post-
Charges - Compared [para 23] : Once
charges are framed, it would be safe to assume
that a very strong suspicion was founded upon
the materials before the Court, which
prompted the Court to form a presumptive
opinion as to the existence of the factual
ingredients constituting the offence alleged
against the accused, to justify the framing of
charge. In that situation, the accused may have
to undertake an arduous task to satisfy the
Court that despite the framing of charge, the
materials presented along with the charge-
sheet (report under Section 173 CrPC), do not
make out reasonable grounds for believing that
the accusation against him is prima facie true.
Similar opinion is required to be formed by the
Court whilst considering the prayer for bail,
made after filing of the first report made under
Section 173 of the Code, as in the present case.

 Reasoning, necessary but no detailed

evaluation of evidence [para 24] : The
 36 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

exercise to be undertaken by the Court at this

stage--of giving reasons for grant or non-grant
of bail--is markedly different from discussing
merits or demerits of the evidence. The
elaborate examination or dissection of the
evidence is not required to be done at this
stage.

25. In the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court

though was discussing about commission of offence under UAPA

Act, the basic ingredients for considering the bail application and

Tripod Test laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is very much

relevant in the instant case also since a grave offence is alleged. At

the cost of repetition it is noticed from records that at the time of

initiation of the criminal proceedings on the basis of the written

information, the name of the present petitioner was not forth

coming. However, subsequently, after the arrest of accused No.2

and also the other accused persons and on tracing of the victim,

certain overt acts have come in to picture and as such the

prosecution has invoked Sec.120-B of IPC. It is also been

 37 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

vehemently argued by the learned SPP that the petitioner belongs

to family having a significant political clout and when there are

materials available with respect to her active participation, the

court has to consider the fact of threat and also intimidation that

may be given to the witnesses or to the victims. It is also relevant

to note at this juncture, that the victim is already traced and in

normal parlance, the petitioner might have been admitted to bail, if

the apprehension as alleged in the above case is not pointed out.

Though the Court is not expressing any opinion with respect to the

merits of the case and also on the veracity of the statements

recorded under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., and also of the victim under

Sec.164 of Cr.P.C., it does indicates a specific role played by the

petitioner in the commission of the offence. Though the victim is

traced as rightly argued by the learned SPP that the present case is

only a tip of an iceberg wherein it is contended that there are

several victims who would not come forward to lodge the

complaint if threat or apprehension is hanging upon them. The

 38 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

Court should always balance the right of the parties and also has to

ensure that a fair trial is to be made available not only to the

accused but also to the complainant. The State is also an important

stakeholder and has to ensure the safety and well being of the

citizenry.

26. In the instant case the other ground of argument which

has been advanced is with respect to admission of accused No.1 to

bail. It is pertinent to note that the accused No.1 was remanded to

Judicial Custody on 4.5.2024 and subsequently, he was admitted to

bail on 13.5.2024. It is also been argued by the learned SPP that at

that point of time, not much materials were available, but at this

juncture, the prosecution is having sufficient materials to point out

the overt act of the petitioner. By considering the same, the sole

question which requires consideration is whether the ground of

parity can be granted to the present petitioner in the wake of

admitting accused No.1 to regular bail. The ground of parity would

be available only when the accused stands on the same footing as

 39 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

that of other accused person. In the instant case the court has relied

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in

Crl.P.No.11041/2023 dt.20.12.2023 in the case of Almas Pasha

Vs. State of Karnataka, wherein it has been held as follows:-

“8. The allegation against the petitioner is as

quoted supra. The findings in the charge sheet are
that the petitioner was the first person to take out the
chopper, cut the hands of the deceased, hit the
deceased along with a stick and later cut the hands
into pieces. Though the petitioner was not required
for custodial interrogation, the findings are grave
enough to anticipate any danger. The plea of parity
that is projected is not binding, as individual offences
and individual overt acts are to be assessed and not
to simply follow orders of other accused who are
enlarged on bail and on parity grant the same. The
parity at best is persuasive. The Apex Court in the
case of NEERU YADAV v. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH1 has elucidated the doctrine of parity
while enlarging the accused on bail on the said
ground. The Apex Court in the said case holds as
follows:
 40 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

"8. It is interesting to note that the learned

counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for
the State submitted that Respondent 2 is still in jail
despite the order of bail as he is involved in so many
cases. We will take up the said issue at a later stage.
It is submitted by Mr Yadav, learned counsel for the
appellant that despite the factum of criminal history
pointed out before the High Court, it has given it a
glorious ignore which the law does not countenance.
The solitary and the singular grievance which is
propounded with solidity that the High Court should
have dwelt upon the same and thereafter decided the
matter. Mr Dash, learned Senior Counsel (though the
State has not moved any application for setting aside
the order of bail granted by the High Court for the
reasons which are unfathomable) unhesitatingly
accepted the said submission. In the additional
affidavit, an independent chart has been filed by the
State and we find that apart from the present case,
there are seven cases pending against Respondent 2.
The chart of the said cases is reproduced below:
"1. FIR No. 664 of 2002 under Section 302
IPC, Police Station Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad.
2. FIR No. 558 of 2004 under Sections 392,
411 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District
Bulandshahar.
3. FIR No. 14 of 2005 under Sections 398,
401, 307 IPC Police Station Noida, Gautam Budh
Nagar.
 41 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

4. FIR No. 15 of 2005 under Sections 25, 27,

Arms Act, Police Station Sector 49, Noida, Gautam
Budh Nagar.
5. FIR No. 1614 of 2008 under Sections 364,
302, 201 IPC, Police Station Sihani Gate,
Ghaziabad.
6. FIR No. 98 of 2005 under Section 2/3
Gangster Act, Police Station Sector 49, Noida,
Gautam Budh Nagar.
7. FIR No. 451 of 2012 under Section 60
Police Station Sector 49 Noida, Gautam Budh
Nagar."
9. On a perusal of the aforesaid list, it is quite
vivid that Respondent 2 is a history-sheeter and is
involved in heinous offences. Having stated the facts
and noting the nature of involvement of the accused
in the crimes in question, there can be no scintilla of
doubt to name him a "history-sheeter". The question,
therefore, arises whether in these circumstances,
should the High Court have enlarged him on bail on
the foundation of parity.

10. In Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan

Singh [Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh,
(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688], it has been
clearly laid down that the grant of bail though
involves exercise of discretionary power of the Court,
 42 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

such exercise of discretion has to be made in a

judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The
heinous nature of crimes warrants more caution as
there is a greater chance of rejection of bail though,
however, dependent on the factual matrix of the
matter. In the said case, reference was made to
Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi [Prahlad Singh
Bhati v. NCT of Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001 SCC
(Cri) 674], and thereafter the Court proceeded to
state the following principles: (Ram Govind case
[Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002)
3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688], SCC p. 602, para
4) "(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in
mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the
severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a
conviction and the nature of evidence in support of
the accusations.

(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses

being tampered with or the apprehension of there
being a threat for the complainant should also weigh
with the court in the matter of grant of bail.

(c) While it is not expected to have the entire

evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a
 43 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the

charge.

(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be

considered and it is only the element of genuineness
that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant
of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as
to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal
course of events, the accused is entitled to an order
of bail."

11. It is a well-settled principle of law that

while dealing with an application for grant of bail, it
is the duty of the Court to take into consideration
certain factors and they basically are :

(i) the nature of accusation and the severity of

punishment in cases of conviction and the nature of
supporting evidence,

(ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering

with the witnesses for apprehension of threat to the
complainant, and

(iii) prima facie satisfaction of the Court in

support of the charge. (See Chaman Lal v. State of
U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC
525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974])
 44 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

12. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis

Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis
Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri)
765], while dealing with the Court's role to interfere
with the power of the High Court to grant bail to the
accused, the Court observed that it is to be seen that
the High Court has exercised this discretion
judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance
with the basic principles laid down in a catena of
judgments on that point. The Court proceeded to
enumerate the factors : (SCC p. 499, para 9) "9. ...
among other circumstances, the factors [which are]
to be borne in mind while considering an application
for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or

reasonable ground to believe that the accused had
committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of

conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or

fleeing, if released on bail;
 45 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and

of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses

being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being

thwarted by grant of bail."

... ... ...

15. This being the position of law, it is clear as

cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored
the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has
weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity.
A history-sheeter involved in the nature of crimes
which we have reproduced hereinabove, are not
minor offences so that he is not to be retained in
custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and
such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be
regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder
and lightning having the effect potentiality of
torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects
the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of
accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the
 46 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and

not in a whimsical manner.”

27. The Hon'ble High Court by placing reliance on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that merely because

the other accused are enlarged on bail, the petitioner would not be

entitled for any right for seeking bail. It is also been held by the

Hon'ble High Court that the court has to appreciate the individual

overt act of the accused person for considering the bail on parity.

As already discussed above, the allegation which was leveled

against accused No.1 in the complaint was that the victim was

summoned by him. Apart from a stray statement that he had

telephonically called upon the other accused persons, there are no

materials to indicate his active involvement. However, with respect

to the petitioner herein the statements recorded of the victim,

witnesses and of the sister of the victim corroborates with respect

to the fact that the petitioner had played a specific overt act. It is

also relevant to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the authority
 47 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

relied upon by the prosecution in the judgment reported in (2022) 4

SCC 497 (Brijmani Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar) has specifically

held as follows:

“35. While we are conscious of the fact that

liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at
the same time while considering an application for
bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature
of the accusations against an accused and the facts
that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when
the accusations may not be false, frivolous or
vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate
material brought on record so as to enable a court
to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While
considering an application for grant of bail a
prima facie conclusion must be supported by
reasons and must be arrived at after having regard
to the vital facts of the case brought on record.
Due consideration must be given to facts
suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal
antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature
of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-
vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused.
 48 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

36. We have extracted the relevant portions

of the impugned orders above. At the outset, we
observe that the extracted portions are the only
portions forming part of the "reasoning" of the
High Court while granting bail. As noted from the
aforecited judgments, it is not necessary for a court
to give elaborate reasons while granting ball
particularly when the case is at the initial stage
and the allegations of the offences by the accused
would not have been crystalised as such. There
cannot be elaborate details recorded to give an
impression that the case is one that would result in
a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while
passing an order on an application for grant of
bail. At the same time, a balance would have to be
struck between the nature of the allegations made
against the accused; severity of the punishment if
the allegations are proved beyond reasonable
doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by
the accused; tampering of the evidence; the
frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal
antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie
 49 Crl.Misc.No.4765/2024

satisfaction of the court in support of the charge

against the accused.”

28. By looking in to the said aspects the prosecution has

made out a prima face case against the petitioner herein and as

such the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.

29. Point No.2 : In view of my answer to point No.1, I

proceed to pass the following;

ORDER
The bail application filed U/Sec.438 of
Cr.P.C., by the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I directly on computer, typed by him,
revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 31 st day
of May, 2024)

(Santhosh Gajanan Bhat)

LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City (CCH-82)
(Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases
related to elected former and sitting MPs/ MLAsin the
State of Karnataka)